The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

North/South Ministerial Council: Inland Waterways

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on inland waterways, held on 26 June 2002 in Belfast.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The fifth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in inland waterways sectoral format took place in Belfast on Wednesday 26 June 2002.
Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Ms Carmel Hanna and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive. Mr Éamon Ó Cuív TD, Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs represented the Irish Government. I am making this report on behalf of myself and Ms Hanna who has approved the report.
The meeting opened with a progress report from the chief executive of Waterways Ireland, Mr John Martin. The Council noted that Waterways Ireland’s budget for 2002 is £23·44 million, and that the Northern Ireland contribution is £3·92 million.
Mr Martin advised that major capital projects on the Grand Canal and the Royal Canal were progressing satisfactorily. The programme of work on the Shannon Navigation had been delayed as a result of planning appeals, but those have been resolved. Progress was also made on upgrading mooring facilities on the Lough Erne and Lower Bann Navigations.
Mr Martin reported that Waterways Ireland has had a series of meetings with user groups, including the Erne Charter Boat Association and the Irish Boat Rental Association. Consultants are currently preparing a marketing and promotions strategy for Waterways Ireland, and several open seminars are planned to give interested parties and the public an opportunity to express their views.
The Council noted that the relevant Departments, North and South, are considering the updated feasibility study on the Ulster Canal to determine the way forward. A public meeting, organised by the Inland Waterways Association of Ireland and the Ulster Waterways Group to raise public awareness of the potential for restoring the Ulster Canal, took place in Monaghan on 12 March 2002 and was attended by more than 200 people. Those attending indicated widespread support for the project.
The Council noted the progress made on the procurement of permanent office accommodation for Waterways Ireland’s headquarters in Enniskillen. Detailed proposals from developers for three separate waterside locations at Ardhowen, Sligo Road and The Brook were subjected to technical and economic appraisal, and it is hoped that the outcome will be announced shortly. Sites have also been identified for new office accommodation for the regional offices in Scarriff and Carrick-on-Shannon. The Dublin office has been established at refurbished premises at Ashtowngate on the Navan Road, and staff transferred there recently.
Mr Martin updated the Council on the current position on the recruitment of staff to Waterways Ireland. To date, 236 staff have been transferred to Waterways Ireland from former departments, which include the Rivers Agency in Northern Ireland. Following open competition, four directors have been appointed for operations, finance and personnel, technical services and marketing and communications, and six other heads of functions have been recruited. Competitions are in progress for other administrative staff, and a number of professional and technical posts have been advertised. The Council was pleased by the amount of interest in the positions advertised — almost 1,500 applications were received for 47 administrative posts. However, it was appreciated that that created a lot of work for staff in Waterways Ireland who have to process the applications.
The Council approved Waterways Ireland’s draft corporate and business plan for 2002-04, which sets out a comprehensive programme of work on a wide range of policy issues, systems development and the proposed works programme. In terms of organisational development, Waterways Ireland plans to set up a policy steering group, a communications unit and a steering group to implement its new targeting social need action plan. An internal audit section will also be established. The corporate plan includes proposals to review health and safety policies and procedures, an assessment of charging policies and a review of navigation by-laws for the waterways within Waterways Ireland’s remit.
The Council approved Waterways Ireland’s equality scheme for formal submission to the Equality Commission, and its New TSN action plan was also approved. The Council noted Waterways Ireland’s annual statement of accounts for 2000, which was examined and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland and the Irish Comptroller and Auditor General. Those accounts will be published together with Waterways Ireland’s annual report for 2000. The Council agreed to meet again in autumn 2002.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s updating us on the work of the North/South Ministerial Council on this important issue. I am glad to know that progress has been made in several areas. However, it has been more than a year since the Minister advised the House that the updated feasibility study on the Ulster Canal was being considered by the relevant Departments in both jurisdictions. Given the level of public interest in that, can the Minister indicate the extent of the progress made?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The feasibility study has been completed. In 2000 it was estimated that it would cost £89 million to restore the Ulster Canal, and that is before taking into account any work to protect the environment and heritage aspects of the canal’s course. The environmental impact statement will be made once we have made the decision to proceed, which we have not done as yet.
Our first task was the feasibility study, which showed a negative economic benefit, in so far as our Department of Finance and Personnel can test such a project. There are wider implications and wider social and economic benefits, which will all have to be considered. It is a large project, and it is actively being considered. However, I cannot say when I will be making the decision about this.

Mr Jim Wilson: No specific mention is made in the report of any progress that Waterways Ireland has made on zoning designated areas for different user groups on Northern Ireland’s larger expanses of water, such as Lough Erne and Lough Neagh. I saw quite a horrific thing happen during the summer. Young children, babies and their parents were bathing in an area that was clearly identified for bathing only. Jet skis were roaring among them at great speed, turning and twirling around and creating such dangerous water movement that a local person had to restrain a jet-skier.
There are genuine user groups. I am not coming down on jet-skiers. There is a place for everyone — for cruising, for anglers, for commercial anglers and for water sports. However, they are all coming together. There is potential for a horrific accident. I hope that it does not happen. I hope that Waterways Ireland is tackling the problem. What progress has it made?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: With regard to zoning and navigational controls at Lough Erne, for example, there is clearly a need to upgrade the by-laws. Waterways Ireland is actively considering that and has discussed the matter with the chief executive of Fermanagh District Council. There has also been discussion with the various district councils along the navigational line of the Lower Bann. There is voluntary zoning on the Lower Bann, which appears to work reasonably well. However, no by-laws are in place. Waterways Ireland is aware that the matter needs to be dealt with and is seeking to do that.
Waterways Ireland’s approach is to try to accommodate all responsible user groups. Mr Wilson gave the example of a dangerous situation in which bathers were in water among jet-skiers. That must be dealt with. Perhaps voluntary zoning is not always appropriate. That is why the by-laws for Lough Erne are being examined. There are no by-laws for the Lower Bann, but their introduction is being considered. That will require widespread consultation.

Mr P J Bradley: Northern Ireland’s contribution to the Waterways Ireland budget is just under £4 million, whereas the Republic of Ireland’s contribution is about £20 million. Can the Minister tell the Assembly how that ratio was arrived at?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The authority on the northern side of the border pays 100% of capital costs in Northern Ireland, but nothing towards capital costs in the Irish Republic, and vice versa. By agreement, the Irish Republic pays 85% of non-capital costs, and Northern Ireland pays 15%.
The Department is discussing the provision of headquarters accommodation with its counterparts across the border. After a suitable breakdown of, for example, the offices at Scarriff, Carrick-on-Shannon and Enniskillen, it has been accepted that it is inappropriate for Northern Ireland to pay 100% of headquarters capital costs at Enniskillen; nor is it appropriate for the Irish Republic to pay 100% of capital costs for the offices at Scarriff and Carrick-on-Shannon, which are regional offices that have common usage. The agreement is, therefore, that, with the exception of office accommodation, Northern Ireland pays 15% of non-capital costs and 100% of capital costs on its side of the border.

Mr Jim Shannon: Over 200 people attended a meeting in Monaghan on 12 March. Can the Minister confirm that some of those were involved in tourism? It would be interesting to know that, because if people involved in tourism do not attend such meetings, they should. There is a tourism potential to be realised.
Secondly, 236 staff have been transferred to Waterways Ireland. Many of us feel that that is an excessive number. Can the Minister confirm the full remit, responsibility and workload that Waterways Ireland is tasked to do? Can he also confirm whether 236 staff will be the final number, or whether more staff will be employed?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As far as the meeting in Monaghan and tourism representatives are concerned, water-based tourism is very much part of the thrust of Waterways Ireland. Water-based tourism is also very much part of the raison d’être for replenishing old canals that have fallen out of use, and, as I have said many times in the House, it has demonstrated large economic benefits in the Irish Republic, on the mainland and in Europe, where that activity is popular among tourists. Therefore, tourism plays a key role.
Waterways Ireland has set up a section specifically for marketing and communications, under a director who is looking to sell the product at all times. Indeed, through recent consultation between the two tourist boards and the various providers, a booklet called ‘Ireland’s Welcoming Waterways’, was produced. That is a preliminary project as they begin to sell the product. Tourism is very much a part of the picture as far as Waterways Ireland is concerned.
The anticipated complement of staff is 380; it currently stands at 300. For example, there are currently 50 staff in Enniskillen, with an anticipated complement of 70, which is the number of staff required. As far as the remit is concerned, I refer Mr Shannon to the corporate plan, the action plan and the various background documents to Waterways Ireland. However, it is essentially a navigation authority concerned with taking over navigable waters within the island and managing them for users, tourists and the local population.
Although replenishing canals in the Irish Republic is very advanced, virtually nothing has been done in Northern Ireland. Much of the work lies ahead, and I anticipate that much of it will be done in Northern Ireland, not least on the Lagan Navigation and the Ulster Canal.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I take into account Jim Wilson’s points about users and the safety of lakes, although I do not want any groups excluded from either the upper or lower parts of Lough Erne or confined to areas where it is uneconomical for users to travel.
The Minister said that the Council noted progress on procurement of permanent office accommodation for Waterways Irelands headquarters in Enniskillen. What progress has been made? I would have expected a decision much sooner than now. Has real progress been made to allow a decision to be announced shortly, or is some sort of foot-dragging taking place on either side of the border?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The process of providing offices in Enniskillen has been ongoing for a couple of years. A development brief for the premises, in which there was a great deal of interest, was issued. A robust process was required to ensure that the decision was the best possible one for the taxpayer and for Waterways Ireland.
We honed it down to three possible sites: Ardhowen, Sligo Road and The Brook. We are now at the next stage — a site has been chosen, and an economic appraisal has been completed. I am satisfied that the process has been robust. The selection has been completed, and we are clarifying the legal position. I will make an announcement when budgetary considerations can be addressed. I have to be certain that we are ready to spend the money when I make the announcement, and I anticipate being in a position to do that in the near future. It would be premature to make an announcement today. The process is completed, but we must be certain that we have the correct answer. We are now ensuring that that is the case.

Mr Alban Maginness: I compliment the Minister on his comprehensive report and on the steady and sensible progress that has been made on this. I am interested in the potential of inland waterways to attract tourists. The report says that consultants are preparing a marketing and promotion strategy for Waterways Ireland. When will those reports be ready for publication and discussion by the Assembly?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: It is difficult to give a precise date by which the reports will be ready. A marketing and communication system has been set up within Waterways Ireland under the control of a director, who is specifically tasked with selling the product as a tourist attraction, and he is working closely with both tourist boards. The first brochure, ‘Ireland’s Welcoming Waterways’, has already been published. That is the beginning of the process, but I am not sure when it will be completed. I can find out and write to the Member with details of the precise date for publication. There has been great interest in this, not least from the providers of the cruising craft and so on and from the local authorities around Lough Erne, the Lower Bann, and the canals in the Irish Republic. We consider the matter to be important and urgent and have given it priority.

Mr Oliver Gibson: The Minister said that the feasibility study on the Ulster Canal is being considered by the relevant Departments to determine the way forward. Is serious consideration now being given to a reconstruction project for the Ulster Canal and, if so, is there a vague timetable for its delivery?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I attempted to relay the position on the Ulster Canal in an answer to a question asked by Mr John Kelly. The matter is being considered, and a feasibility study has been completed. We know the cost of the project, based on prices in 2000. We will have to find inventive ways to fund such a large capital project. The Ulster Canal and Lagan Navigation capital projects should proceed, resources allowing. It is not simply a matter of making a case in the Assembly and then receiving the money in a cheque from the centre. That would not be possible. We must look at other sources, such as public-private partnerships and possibly the reinvestment and reform initiative.
Those matters are being considered, and we take one step at a time. Old feasibility studies on the Ulster Canal have been examined, and environmental scoping has been brought up to date. The last scoping was carried out in 1998. I have been trying for the last couple of years to get close to a position of being able to make a proposal on the Ulster Canal, and we are coming to that point. Members will appreciate that it is a very large project and that we must step carefully.

Mrs Joan Carson: I thank the Minister for his report and I welcome it, especially given the employment of 50 people in Enniskillen, which is an unemployment black spot in my constituency. I welcome the upgrading of mooring facilities on Lough Erne, which are needed by tourists and boat owners.
In his comprehensive works programme, will the Minister include an audit of the water quality of the Erne system? I am concerned that there has been a visible growth in weeds along the supposedly navigable and deeper waters. Is the increased growth of eel weed in clear water due to the infestation of zebra mussels? The Republic of Ireland’s report on the water quality in its rivers shows that the headwaters of the Erne are the second most-polluted system in the Republic. Does the Minister have that report to hand?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Although water quality is very important, Waterways Ireland has no responsibility for monitoring or policing water quality. That lies with another Department.
Zebra mussels were spread by boats and became widely established in the 1990s. No biological control for them has yet been identified. With regard to such matters as the Ulster Canal, that factor must be taken into account to ensure that the mussels are not carried further into our system.
In respect of Mrs Carson’s other concerns, I am not clear about the water quality of the headwaters in the Irish Republic. I can make enquiries if she wishes, but, strictly speaking, Waterways Ireland is an authority responsible for keeping waterways navigable, and water quality issues are outside its remit.

Social Security Bill: Second Stage

Mr Nigel Dodds: That the Second Stage of the Social Security Bill (NIA 3/02) be agreed.
This Bill makes provisions for Northern Ireland which correspond to the social security provisions made for Great Britain by the Employment Act 2002, which received Royal Assent on 8 July 2002. The Bill is, therefore, a parity measure.
In yesterday’s debate on accelerated passage for the Bill, I mentioned that there has always been parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the area of social security. That is as it should be. People in Northern Ireland pay the same taxes and National Insurance contributions as people in Great Britain. They are, therefore, entitled to receive the same benefits. In addition, parity enables Northern Ireland to use the Great Britain computer systems. That is much more cost-effective than having to set up separate computer systems here, which would have to be funded from the Northern Ireland block.
Parity does not only cover the content of the legislation; it also covers the timing of its implementation. New provisions have always been introduced in Northern Ireland at the same time as they have been introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that arrangement should continue.
Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill cover statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance. The period for which statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance are payable is being extended from 18 to 26 weeks, and the standard rate is being increased from £75 to £100 a week, or to 90% of weekly earnings where they are less than £100 a week.
These are significant changes for working mothers. The increase in maternity benefits to £100 a week from April 2003 is the biggest in real terms since 1948. It comes on top of a substantial increase in April 2002 from £62·20 to £75 a week. Combined with the extension to the payment period, the new rate of pay means that compared with now, most women who receive statutory maternity pay will gain about £1,250.
Clause 3 introduces two important changes: it safeguards a woman’s entitlement to statutory maternity pay from 15 weeks before her baby is due and increases the period of notice that a woman must give to her employer from three to four weeks before starting her paid leave. If a woman decides to leave her employer in the 15 weeks before her baby is due, for a reason unconnected with her pregnancy, she may not receive statutory maternity pay. Clause 3 introduces changes that ensure that if an employee meets the conditions for statutory maternity pay and notifies her employer properly, she will receive maternity pay, even if, for any reason, her employment ends after that point.
Employees must provide three weeks’ notice before starting paid maternity leave. The period of notice has been extended to four weeks, which will give employers a longer period over which they can arrange cover for the absence of the pregnant employee. As now, clause 3 also provides a power to modify the entitlement in notice provisions in certain cases, such as premature birth.
Clause 4 increases the standard rate of maternity allowance so that it mirrors the new standard rate of statutory maternity pay. A woman will receive the standard rate of £100 a week, or 90% of her average weekly earnings if that is less than the standard rate.
Most pregnant working women receive statutory maternity pay from their employers, but maternity allowance is aimed at those employees, such as self-employed women, women with a more variable employment record, and women who are on low earnings, who cannot receive such pay. Working women have no choice but to take time off work to prepare for and recover from childbirth, and it is important that we help as many as we can during that time.
The Welfare Reform and Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 introduced the requirement for certain benefit claimants to attend work-focused interviews. Clause 5 of the Bill extends that requirement to the partners of recipients of social security benefits that include an amount for the partner. Benefit sanctions may be applied if the partner fails, without good cause, to take part in an interview. The work-focused interview will concentrate on job potential and provide the partner with access to help and information on work benefits and services such as childcare. However, any action that a partner may choose to take, beyond taking part in the interview, will be entirely voluntary.
Clause 6 makes further provision for the exchange of information between my Department, the Department for Employment and Learning, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Housing Executive. In particular, it allows for the exchange of employment and training information.
Clause 7 of the Bill amends article 17 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The substitution of paragraph (4) arises from the need to make the proposed carers Order, which will address the deregulation of carers’ allowances, correspond with an equivalent Order made in Great Britain under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. Drafting of the carers Order highlighted a technical problem relating to the Assembly control of Orders made under article 17, and legal advice is that Assembly control cannot commence until paragraph (4) is amended.
The carers Order is significant because it will make several changes to invalid care allowance, including changing its name to carers’ allowance in April 2003. The Order will provide for carers aged 65 and over to claim the allowance for the first time and will extend the entitlement period for up to eight weeks after the death of the disabled person. In keeping with the long-standing principle of parity in social security matters, the provisions are required to be in place by 28 October so that claimants in Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged, particularly as the same provisions will apply in the rest of the country from that date.
The opportunity has also been taken to make consequential amendments to article 17(1) and 17(2) of the Deregulating and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, to take account of the enactment of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 and the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000.
Clause 8 and schedules 1 and 2 of the Bill make minor and consequential amendments and repeals that flow from the changes being made by clauses 1 to 6.
The Bill is an important step in the ongoing process of welfare reform, and I commend it to the Assembly.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome those clauses of the Bill that facilitate an improvement in the provision of statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance by increasing the period of payment from 18 weeks to 26 weeks and by increasing the rate of maternity allowance. As the Minister stated, those provisions are contained in clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill. That will be good news for expectant working mothers and fathers.
However, the subsequent clauses, which the Minister has outlined, are more contentious — the potential impact of the Bill on partners could be described as the good news coming before the bad. The later clauses propose to change the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 so as to make provision for work-focused interviews for partners of benefit claimants by inserting a new section after section 2A entitled:
"Full entitlement to certain benefits conditional on work-focused interview for partners".
The partners of claimants who receive income support, jobseeker’s allowance, severe disablement allowance and invalid care allowance will be subject to that condition. Previous legislation, such as the Welfare Reform and Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, introduced a requirement for certain benefit claimants, including lone parents, to attend work-focused interviews. The provisions in this Bill propose to extend that requirement to partners of benefit claimants. If they fail to do so, the legislation will prescribe benefit sanctions. One can argue that there may be an advantage in encouraging partners who lack confidence or who believe that their role is to stay at home as the home keeper. Women in particular might derive some stimulus from work-focused interviews especially if the latter, according to the explanatory and financial memorandum, cover
"previous employment records, capacity to undertake work, the in-house financial support available and help in areas such as childcare, housing and training."
On the other hand, partners of claimants may feel that the requirements will eventually be enforced, and that is why they may see the Bill as contentious. They may be seeking work or taking up training even when they have family or other domestic responsibilities: there is also concern about the difficulties for claimants whose partners are claiming severe disablement allowance. The Bill does not recognise that many partners of claimants who stay at home are work-focused: work in the home requires many skills.
The other concern about these provisions is the impact that they may have on carers of children, the elderly or the sick. It needs to be made clear that such people will not be penalised by the provisions and that work-focused interviews will not be extended by subsequent legislation to include compulsory attendance at training or compulsory job seeking. The major difficulty for the Committee for Social Development is that the requirement for legislative parity means that once again there is insufficient time to fulfil a proper scrutiny role adequately.
We are not given sight of the passage of such Bills through Westminster. Are we expected to rubber-stamp those Bills which are given accelerated passage, without proper consultation or scrutiny? The Committee for Social Development and the Assembly deserve better. If we are to legislate on parity Bills, we should at least be given sight of the debate and amendments to such Bills, as they travel through Westminster.
We are not "as British as Finchley", and our constituents have different needs. Our social situation is widely diverse, with higher levels of unemployment and deprivation and more people on income support — 68% more than in England. We have a low-wage economy and serious health problems. It is time that the issue of parity in relation to social security matters, child support, pensions and all those needs are investigated in legal and in policy terms.

Mr Speaker: I get a sense from what some Members have said that there is a lack of clarity about parity. There is no such legal thing as "parity legislation" – it merely describes a political decision to keep legislation here the same as in the rest of the United Kingdom. The term "parity legislation" has no legal standing whatever. There is no description or definition of it — it is purely a political decision. The Assembly is at liberty to take whatever course of action it chooses in relation to parity. The Minister made that clear when he pointed out that there were certain economic and political reasons why he supported that stance.
I wanted to make that clear, because when the term is used there is sometimes an impression that it has a legal standing and that the Assembly is not free to make its own decision in that regard. From a procedural point of view I point out that the Assembly can do more than it might imagine.

Mr Mark Robinson: I acknowledge that the Minister has taken the time to ensure that the Committee for Social Development has been fully briefed on the legislation, in view of the fact that his Department would be asking for accelerated passage for the Social Security Bill to ensure that the principle of parity was adhered to, as the Chairman, Mr Cobain, outlined yesterday. Two weeks ago, the Committee reached the conclusion that the measures being proposed would be of benefit to many more applicants than was previously the case.
I therefore welcome the Second Stage of the Social Security Bill, which will, once fully implemented, provide benefits to some of the most needy and vulnerable in our society. In particular, I want to emphasise and, indeed, to welcome the changes made to maternity payments, which now include the provision for statutory maternity pay in relation to rate, period and entitlement. That is a major step forward in providing real and tangible assistance and benefits to working mothers.
The changes made in the invalid care allowance, including the change of its name to carers allowance, widens the scope of those who are eligible to claim, by allowing people over the age of 65 to benefit from the scheme. Once the Bill is implemented in full, more people than ever before will become eligible for this type of benefit.
The inclusion of the state pension credit Bill will ultimately benefit the most vulnerable and needy pensioners in our society. The Bill’s aim is to create a system that is easier to access and will therefore encourage pensioners to make a claim to which they are entitled. Once implemented, the changes will bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain and will allow pensioners in Northern Ireland to have access to the new state pension credit and thus a more generous income. This provides the opportunity for bringing more people into the realm of eligibility with regard to receiving benefits. With the passage of this Bill through the Assembly, the people of Northern Ireland will not lose out on any benefits to which they may be eligible.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I appreciate the way in which the Bill has been handled over the past two days. I listened to Members’ points, and I wish to address a couple of those. The introduction of these benefits at the same time and at the same rates as in the rest of the country is good news for the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr Speaker, you made several comments about parity legislation, and you are right to point out that it makes sense to maintain parity for several political and economic reasons. There is now some statutory relevance and provision on this issue. Before 1998, there was no statutory basis for the application of the principle of parity. Section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 gave legislative expression to aspects of that principle for the first time. It requires the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Northern Ireland Minister to run single systems of social security, child support and pensions to the extent agreed between them.
It must be emphasised that parity has worked to the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland for many years. It means that people here who pay the same rates of income tax, National Insurance contributions and so on are entitled to the same benefits, at the same rates, at the same time as people elsewhere. That is right, and if it were not the case, our constituents would rightly accuse us of depriving them of something to which they are entitled.
Parity works to Northern Ireland’s advantage. For example, contributory benefits such as retirement pension and incapacity benefit are funded from National Insurance contributions. The amount raised through those contributions is, and has been for a long time, insufficient to meet the demand for such benefits, and the shortfall in the Northern Ireland National Insurance fund has to be made up by a transfer from the Great Britain fund. Non-contributory benefits are financed from taxation revenue. Expenditure is demand-led and is outside the managed block grant. If we interfere with that, we must bear in mind the consequences to the expenditure that will be required from the Northern Ireland block grant, and the expenditure that will be required to manage and implement any breach of parity with regard to computer systems and other matters. Anyone who examined that option in any detail would quickly see that it is to our benefit to continue to implement parity provisions.
Members raised several points about work-focused interviews. I must make it clear that this is simply the implementation of a principle for welfare reform. If a claimant has stated that they have a partner, that partner will be called to attend an interview. All that is required is that they discuss their personal circumstances. There is no requirement to find work. It is a means of exploring with the individual their needs and circumstances, and of giving them advice, support and help. It has been found to be very helpful. Not everyone will find work, but people can explore the opportunities for fulfilling their potential. That is all that is being asked of them, and that cannot be described as bad news. The Bill is good news for the people of Northern Ireland. It will bring benefits to those who are entitled to them.
Yesterday I said that I was grateful for the opportunity to speak to the Committee for Social Development about the Bill, and to give our reasons for seeking accelerated passage. Some time ago officials appeared before the Committee to discuss the content of the proposed legislation, and members were provided with a copy of the draft Bill. I have searched the records, and there has been no correspondence from some Members who spoke today — I refer to one Member in particular — about any aspect of the Bill. People who speak about scrutiny and consultation should take this matter seriously. If Members have points to make, they should make them, and we could then discuss those points and deal with them as we go through the Bill, rather than Members making spurious points about consultation at the end of the process when they have not bothered at any stage to make those points directly.
I am pleased with how the Bill has been debated. Mr ONeill made a useful point in yesterday’s debate, and I have made an undertaking with the Committee that officials will endeavour to keep members informed about the progress of legislation through Westminster. Members will be able to discuss issues and reflect on them, but they should remember that legislation may be changed at Westminster. It is sensible and correct that Members who are interested in issues should have the opportunity to be briefed. All Members can acquaint themselves with what is happening at Westminster. The information is in the public domain and is not a secret.
I thank the Assembly for its speedy and expeditious consideration of the Second Stage of the Social Security Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Social Security Bill (NIA 3/02) be agreed.

Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (Assembly Standards) Bill: Second Stage

Mr Donovan McClelland: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (Assembly Standards) Bill (NIA 25/01) be agreed.
This is a historic piece of legislation because it is the first Committee Bill to be introduced to the Assembly.
The main purpose of the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (Assembly Standards) Bill is to enable the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland to fulfil the role and functions of an Assembly commissioner for standards. The Committee on Standards and Privileges is responsible for the consideration of any matter that relates to the conduct of Members, including complaints about alleged breaches of the Assembly’s code of conduct and the guide to the rules relating to the conduct of Members.
In September 2000 the Committee embarked on its first inquiry into the possible appointment of an Assembly commissioner for standards. The key recommendation in the Committee’s report was that there should be an independent mechanism for the investigation of complaints against Members, and accordingly that an Assembly commissioner for standards should be appointed. It was envisaged that the commissioner would investigate complaints against Members and submit a report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges on any investigation undertaken. In turn, the Committee would submit a report to the Assembly on all complaints investigated, and could recommend the imposition of sanctions on Members. The Assembly, in plenary sitting, would be the final arbiter on each complaint and on the determination of sanctions.
The Assembly approved the report and its findings in April 2001.
After publication of its report, the Committee considered various methods of appointing a commissioner for standards and concluded that the Office of the Ombudsman for Northern Ireland was particularly well placed and equipped to discharge the functions of such a commissioner. The Committee was satisfied that the Ombudsman’s office had all the investigative infrastructure, skills and experience to investigate complaints against Members.
In taking this approach, the Committee was keen to maintain the independence of the commissioner by ensuring that neither the appointment nor the tenure of the commissioner would come within the authority of the Committee or of the Assembly itself. Our intention was that the independence of the commissioner for standards should be analogous to that of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The approach developed by the Committee was also based on a belief that the independent investigation of complaints by the Assembly Ombudsman, who is appointed through the public appointments procedure, would promote additional transparency in the investigative process and thus secure greater public confidence in the work of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the Assembly itself. For reasons of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, the Committee decided that this was the most attractive option by far.
The investigation of complaints against Members will be in addition to the Assembly Ombudsman’s present functions of investigating complaints against Departments and other public authorities that are referred to him by Members.
In carrying out his function of investigating Assembly standards, the Assembly Ombudsman is not subject to the direction or control of the Assembly. However, where the complaint relates to a Member’s conduct, he must have regard to any code of conduct or guidance agreed or approved by the Assembly. To give effect to the proposals to have complaints investigated by the Ombudsman, the Committee concluded that primary legislation would have to be introduced and that the most appropriate method of advancing the relevant primary legislation would be by means of a Bill sponsored by the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
The Committee went to consultation on its proposals through advertisement in the local press. No responses were received, and having to start its responsibility in this area, the Committee has taken the view that there appears to be no objection in principle to this approach. With that in mind, the Committee decided to proceed with the introduction of legislation.
As I stated at the outset, the Bill enables the Assembly Ombudsman to fulfil the roles and functions of an Assembly commissioner for standards. The primary function of the commissioner will be to carry out an investigation into matters relating to the conduct, interests and privileges of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly at the request of the Committee and to submit a report on any investigation conducted. The commissioner will report to the Committee on his or her investigation but will not make any formal recommendation regarding the imposition of sanctions or penalties.
The Committee will subsequently report its findings on the complaint to the Assembly. The report will contain a recommendation on whether to impose sanctions on a Member. The full report, submitted by the commissioner to the Committee, will be appended to the Committee’s report to the Assembly. The Committee’s report may be the subject of debate in the Assembly, and the Member or Members complained about will have the opportunity to take part in that debate. The Assembly meeting in plenary, will ultimately decide whether to accept the Committee’s findings. The Assembly will also decide if any of the Committee’s recommendations on the imposition of sanctions on the Member should be accepted.
The Bill is necessary to enable the Assembly Ombudsman to fulfil the role of Assembly commissioner for standards. For these reasons, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. We welcome the introduction of investigatory powers for the Assembly Ombudsman. It is essential for the credibility of the Committee on Standards and Privileges that the investigation of Members who have allegedly breached the code of conduct be carried out by an independent person.
It is important that the Ombudsman should have adequate powers to guarantee independence and that due regard be given to his reports. Such a duty should be added to the Bill, and I look forward to seeing it passed. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I have no further comment. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (Assembly Standards) Bill (NIA 25/01) be agreed.

Mr Speaker: The Bill now stands referred to the Committee of the Centre.

Asperger’s Syndrome

Mr John Fee: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Ministers of Education and Health, Social Services and Public Safety to instigate a comprehensive review of the services provided for people, adults and children, with Asperger’s syndrome and the training of professionals specialising in the treatment of such individuals.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important, complex and difficult issue. Mr Speaker, as a layman I speak with trepidation, in the full and certain knowledge that you and other Members may know infinitely more about this topic than I do. Nonetheless, this motion is more about raising awareness and keeping the matter to the fore with the relevant Ministers. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is in the Chamber.
This matter is to do with fair play, equality and basic human and civil rights. There are people with Asperger’s syndrome and autism of different forms, and they may not be getting the support, care and attention that they deserve and are entitled to.
Some Members have eyesight disorders, and they expect to get a speedy diagnosis of their problem, access to medical care and the glasses they need readily and easily. There is an induction loop system and other aids to support people with hearing difficulties who work in or visit this Building.
There are people with Asperger’s syndrome whose needs are not visible and whose condition is not easy to diagnose, and when it is diagnosed it is not always clear what the best treatment is, so we must continuously update our knowledge of that syndrome, and of autistic spectrum disorder, and use best practice in treatment and education. We must ensure that the public have an understanding and awareness of the range of problems faced by those with Asperger’s syndrome and their families.
The main characteristics of the syndrome are to do with how individuals communicate, understand the world around them and relate to their environment and to the people they live and come in contact with. Many people with Asperger’s syndrome are just like the rest of us; they want to make friends and interact, but they find it very difficult to communicate. Non-verbal expressions and social rules and conventions are quite often beyond them. That creates a high level of anxiety and isolation, difficulties with communication and severe learning difficulties.
In those circumstances, their needs for care and attention, one-to-one education, and precision in the use of language and how one relates to the individual are much greater than ours. Therefore, we must find the mechanisms and supports that will allow sufferers of Asperger’s syndrome to live their lives and participate in society to the full. We must protect them against the almost inevitable danger that is depression, which looms somewhere in the back of their minds and is often one of the most debilitating symptoms of the disorder.
No professional medical practitioner would disagree that there are many differences in diagnostic procedures across the education and library board and the health board areas. There does not appear to be a single professional view of what is the most effective diagnostic method. Highly skilled professionals often must choose the type of treatments that should be given. Their decision is based more on personal experience than on any empirical research or proven methods. The situation is made more difficult by the fact that there is no defining biological marker or medical test on which to base a diagnosis. Furthermore, there is no co-ordinated or standardised approach to the making of assessments or diagnoses, or how treatment can best be delivered.
The scale of the problem must be clarified. There is no accurate information about the numbers of schoolchildren or adults who have the disorder. Figures that I have obtained from the Southern Education and Library Board show that the number of people diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome or autism almost doubled between 1999 and 2001. In 1999, 126 sufferers were diagnosed; that figure rose to 248 in 2001. Nobody in the Southern Education and Library Board or the health board was willing to stick his neck out and say that the figures were accurate. We do not know how many people have Asperger’s syndrome, either because they have not been diagnosed or because the problem is not discovered until the early teenage years.
Before we go much further, we must recognise that finding a mechanism for early diagnosis and intervention is crucial in helping sufferers from Asperger’s syndrome to live their lives to the full and in giving support to their families. We must have properly trained specialists from across the range of professionals in the education and health spheres who can recognise the potential of Asperger’s syndrome, and the language and learning skills that are needed. Those specialists can draw in key professionals such as members of education boards, social workers and specialist teachers, and can put together the type of multidisciplinary response that will allow sufferers of Asperger’s syndrome to live their lives to the full.
Several organisations work with Asperger’s syndrome sufferers, and I am particularly grateful to Parents and Professionals & Autism (PAPA) for its support and for the information it has provided me with.
The report from the task group on autism, which was commissioned by the Department of Education, is well thought out and well researched, and much of what I am saying today reflects the contents of that report. However, structure and formality must be put on interdepartmental responses to autism and Asperger’s syndrome. Dedicated resources must be invested in the training of professionals and the delivery of supports to families. A common response should be developed by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Education, and also by the Department for Employment and Learning, because an autism-specific employment programme should be established to try to help sufferers of Asperger’s syndrome and other forms of autism to integrate into their environment.
Many Members wish to speak, and I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Education has arrived in the Chamber. I am grateful to the two Ministers for attending, and perhaps I will get an opportunity to make a winding-up speech at the end of the debate.

Dr Joe Hendron: I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion. The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety is aware of the problems posed by Asperger’s syndrome. Representatives of concerned parents from PAPA and other organisations have spoken to the Committee about the difficulties faced by the parents of sufferers. They have spoken eloquently about the heartache parents face in trying to discover what is wrong with their children and of the lack of understanding of the condition among professionals and Health Service managers.
I am grateful that the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety are present for the debate.
As a GP with more than a few years’ experience — I will not say how many — I know of the difficulty of identifying Asperger’s syndrome in young people and adults. The condition was only described in the 1940s, and health professionals are still unsure about the causes of the syndrome. It is an autistic syndrome disorder and it is a lifelong condition. Many people remain undiagnosed until they are adults. Only now are professionals becoming more familiar with Asperger’s syndrome and the real difficulties faced by people with the condition, especially children and young people.
It has been estimated that 36 children in 10,000 definitely have the syndrome and another 35 children in 10,000 have similar social impairments. Many of those children may have above-average intelligence, but they face difficulties with social interaction, communication, understanding, and imaginative play. People with Asperger’s syndrome may suffer from severe depression, anxiety, impulsive behaviour and mood swings. Early diagnosis is therefore important.
Mr Fee has rightly said that Asperger’s syndrome is a condition that requires a shared understanding and a shared approach from health and social care professionals and education professionals. The suitability of provisions in schools and at home for people with Asperger’s syndrome would be much improved if there were good links between health and education professionals. Health monitoring must be applied consistently to ensure that the disability is diagnosed early. Lack of early diagnosis will only increase problems such as lowered self-esteem and poor mental health.
The future lies in the hands of our children, and I ask the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Minister of Education to ensure that disorders such as autism and Asperger’s syndrome are properly resourced and funded. I welcome the Health Minister’s commitment, given to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, that she will introduce a review of mental health policy and improve adolescent mental health services. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Social Services Inspectorate will also undertake other work that may affect children with Asperger’s syndrome.
Examples of work to improve services, such as the new Southern Area Children’s Services Plan for 2002-05, are also welcome. The plan identifies the need for a coherent and integrated approach to family support to ensure that children reach their full potential. We need a coherent and comprehensive approach throughout Northern Ireland, irrespective of administrative boundaries, to sufferers of conditions such as Asperger’s syndrome. That must happen if we are to take seriously the Programme for Government, especially its focus on improving service delivery and addressing cross-cutting policy development.
As Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety I ask the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education to instigate a co-ordinated review of the services provided for people with Asperger’s syndrome and related disorders. I support the motion.

Mr Paul Berry: I support the motion wholeheartedly. Mr Fee clearly outlined the concerns and problems relating to Asperger’s syndrome that must be addressed. The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety also outlined the problems and what needs to be done. Parents and Professionals & Autism (PAPA) has lobbied very hard on this distressing matter. The motion states that a comprehensive review must be instigated as soon as possible to deal with the issue.
Parents are concerned by the perceived lack of understanding of Asperger’s syndrome among health professionals and others, which results in anxiety for parents and children. The Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety must recognise the problems surrounding the illness.
Some parents discover that their children have the syndrome only when they start school. The syndrome can cause grave concern for parents and deep depression for children who are severely affected. A comprehensive review and the training of professionals to specialise in treating such individuals are vital. We must back that wholeheartedly, and I believe that all Members will do that. However, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety must also focus on early intervention and treatment. I hope that both Departments will work collectively so that the anxiety of parents and children who are affected by the illness can be eased immediately.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support the motion. This is an opportunity to increase public recognition of Asperger’s syndrome and to focus on what needs to be done to address it. In 1999-2000, the Education and Training Inspectorate carried out a survey of children with Asperger’s syndrome. It found that
"The area boards’ figures indicate that there are approximately 160 pupils who have been officially diagnosed as having Asperger syndrome."
The figures reveal wide variations between area boards and suggest variations in the diagnostic approach to the condition. The figures generally fall into the lower end of the nationally recognised ratios, which suggests that the condition is not widely recognised in the North.
The inspection team’s view is that the present numbers appear to be significantly underestimated. The task of agreeing diagnostic criteria and applying them uniformly across the boards is urgent. Only when that has been done can the Department of Education evaluate the resources required to provide appropriate education for the children concerned.
I am pleased to note that the Minister of Education and his Department have not been idle. The task forces on autism, both North and South, met and reported earlier this year. The report of the task force in the North noted that a wave of autistic spectrum disorder is rising through the school system and that, as it progresses, there will be large increases in the numbers of pupils, students and trainees diagnosed as having autistic spectrum disorder. There will also be a large increase in demand for appropriate services and educational provision.
The report recommended that significant improvement be made in three areas: access to multi-agency, multidisciplinary diagnostic and assessment services; training for parents of, and people who work with, children and young people with autistic spectrum disorder; and school-based and home-based educational and therapeutic provision.
The treatment centre in Armagh will be a centre of excellence and an all-island facility. It will provide expert advice and access to the latest research. In order for the centre to be successful, it must harness the energies of all concerned, including health and education services, parents and academic and medical research, to deliver the best and most effective provision. The hopes of all the families of autistic spectrum disorder and Asperger’s syndrome sufferers are invested in it.
Recent developments suggest that we are on the right road, and we must continue down it to improve the situation.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I thank John Fee for bringing the issue before the House. Asperger’s syndrome is a form of autism that is often described as a display of odd behaviour. It affects sufferers’ ability to communicate and the way in which they relate to others. As a result, they frequently cannot display appropriate social behaviour. They may be clumsy or awkward and have a lack of common sense. Many sufferers are dyslexic and have problems with mathematics, while others have language disabilities or sensory difficulties. They are often obsessive about routines, and, in order to avoid anxiety and stress, they need an extremely structured and supportive system with the minimum of change.
Sufferers frequently feel isolated because they are aware that they are different from other people. Several Members said that increasing numbers of people are being diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. What information or education does the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety provide about the condition for parents, carers or the wider community? Public awareness of the condition must be raised.
Are the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and her Department communicating with the Minister of Education to ensure that teachers and healthcare professionals can be trained, so that skilled people are available to provide treatment and support for Asperger’s syndrome sufferers and their carers?
The fact that this debate has come before the House proves the need for the Minister of Education to bring forward the special education needs and disability Bill as soon as possible.
Members have identified a wide range of needs that are not being met, and the situation will deteriorate unless they are addressed immediately. I suppose that inadequate funding is the main reason for the lack of action. Although Asperger’s syndrome is pigeonholed under health, it is not only the responsibility of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, but also of several other Departments, including Employment and Learning, and Social Development.
A serious issue that affects people with Asperger’s syndrome is disability living allowance (DLA). Although DLA is aimed at improving the quality of life of those with disabilities, some people are wrongly denied it. Parents and carers of people with Asperger’s syndrome find it increasingly difficult to access DLA because of the guidelines in force. The right to choose is vital, so people with Asperger’s syndrome and their carers should have as many choices as possible. It is important that they be facilitated to take control of their lives and to achieve a level of independence commensurate with their condition.
There is also a social aspect. Every individual is part of the community and, as such, has the right to the opportunity to develop a social network. People with Asperger’s syndrome deserve those opportunities. I support the motion.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I support the motion; it is good that Mr Fee moved it. Although the Assembly has debated autism, this motion raises awareness of the difficulties experienced by people with Asperger’s syndrome, which is a growing problem. Members must send a clear message to the families who are directly affected by the dreadful and, at times, terrifying ordeal of having children or young people with Asperger’s syndrome or autism.
During the Assembly debate on autism we agreed that it was vital that all Departments co-ordinate their approach to autism and Asperger’s syndrome, which is an autistic spectrum disorder. We were delighted that the Department of Education, at the request of the Minister, set up a task group and a centre for autism sufferers. I am pleased that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has had similar work carried out and that improvements will be made.
Autism and Asperger’s syndrome affect the families of sufferers, and it is essential that there be an urgent review, initially by the two Departments continuing the work that they have started, and then incorporating other Departments.
I have been trying to convince the Minister of Education to ring-fence funds for special needs so that children, young people and adults can be given support and practical help appropriate to their situation. I hope that special-needs legislation will be introduced soon so that these changes can be made.
People with Asperger’s syndrome are usually highly intelligent but have many problems with social interaction and trouble with at least two of the following: a marked impairment in the use of multiple non-verbal behaviour, such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture and gestures to regulate social interaction; a failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level; a lack of spontaneous desire to share enjoyment, interests or achievements with other people, which is characterised by a failure to show, bring or point out objects of interest to other people; and, most importantly, a lack of social and emotional interaction.
I am dealing with a child who suffers from Asperger’s syndrome, and the whole family of that child must deal with the situation hourly. Sufferers’ quality of life is impaired, so we should emphasise to the Executive that they should not be allowed to slip through the net of the system without help, treatment or support. Given the intelligence of those with the syndrome, it is often difficult to detect it during a child’s early years, and in the past children have been labelled as disruptive without any attention being paid to the causes of their behaviour. Research must be carried out to find out how best Asperger’s syndrome and autism can be detected early and specific treatment given.
Therapy aimed at teaching social and pragmatic skills can remedy many weaknesses. Anxiety leading to significant rigidity can be treated medically. Although it is harder for them, adults with Asperger’s syndrome can have relationships, families, and happy and productive lives. Therefore the Assembly must stop the practice of passing such people from education to health; from having a learning disability to having a mental illness. Staff must be trained to deal with the problems adequately. The aim must be the development of a co-ordinated action plan and the provision of proper resources so that patients and their families can have a better chance in life.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the motion, and the opportunity to speak briefly about Asperger’s syndrome and autism. I agree with Mr Fee who said that most Members probably know little about Asperger’s syndrome and autism. However, the Assembly can raise awareness: it has a duty to do so.
I am heartened by the attendance of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Minister of Education: it sends out a clear message that they both take Asperger’s syndrome and autism seriously and that they are committed to providing appropriate services.
Some time ago, the Minister of Education announced to the Assembly the development and opening of a centre of excellence in Armagh. Mr McHugh said the centre would be an all-island facility that would provide expert advice, and the latest research, training, support and development for teachers and parents and for individuals who suffer from the disorder. However, it has been shown that in order for the centre to carry out that work, there needs to be commitment not only from Minister de Brún and Minister McGuinness but also from the Minister for Employment and Learning and from the Minister for Social Development. Ms Lewsley highlighted issues that are the responsibility of the Minister for Social Development and his Department such as disability living allowance. All such issues are interlinked.
Most Members mentioned the task group, which made comprehensive recommendations with regard to interprofessional co-operation, the need to involve parents and the need to improve school and home-based education and therapy. Its report provides a road map for the Assembly’s approach to children and young adults who suffer from Asperger’s syndrome and other forms of autism. I welcome the task group’s report, which supports educational provision for children and young people with autism. I hope that the report’s main recommendations will be adopted as soon as possible. There have been several developments, such as the opening of the centre, that suggest to the Assembly that we are on the road to providing key services to people who suffer from the disorder. I suggest that a copy of the Official Report of this debate be passed to those Ministers who are not present, as the issue concerns them. I believe that the Assembly is on the right road and should continue down that road.

Mr Speaker: It has been drawn to my attention that we have a technical difficulty. I understand that the computers that run the annunciator service have frozen. I have seen quite a number of Members coming in during the debate, who may have had an interest in this subject and expected it to be a little later on. They may not have been assisted by the fact that the annunciators are frozen. Colleagues are working on this matter, but, obviously, it is not very helpful at this particular juncture.
The second problem is that relatively few Members indicated a wish to speak at the start of this time-limited, one-hour debate. No less than two Ministers are present. They are referred to in the motion and will, therefore, wish to speak. I appeal to all Members to be as brief as possible. I will try to allow everyone to speak, but I may not be able to, simply because of the difficulties that have arisen. I ask Members to be as understanding as possible.

Rev Robert Coulter: I apologise for not being present, owing to other responsibilities. I also apologise to Mr Fee for missing the beginning of the debate.
It is fair to say that Asperger’s syndrome is not as well publicised as autism, so I congratulate Mr Fee for tabling the motion. I welcome the opportunity to debate the topic. It will, I hope, help to raise the condition’s profile with the public, statutory bodies and others who may come into contact with those who suffer from it. I have already told the House that I have a personal interest in autism, having a grandson who suffers from it, and I can identify hands-on with Asperger’s syndrome.
Experts will debate whether Asperger’s syndrome should be classified separately from autism. The task group on autism made it clear that there is a difficulty in differentiating between the two. There are two parts to that problem, namely those who suffer from the condition and the professionals who treat it. A division must be made between the two. For instance, care is taken of young people with autism up to the age of 19, but there is absolutely no provision after that. The problem with the professionals is that very little has been done to prepare for a diagnosis of the condition.
In my meeting with PAPA, the problems in obtaining statistics about the number of people who suffer from Asperger’s syndrome were explained to me. The task group report argues that the lack of training for professionals in an organised assessment and diagnostic procedure makes it difficult to obtain data on those who have Asperger’s syndrome.
The report speaks of an autism wave hitting services in Northern Ireland. Since 1999, the Southern Education and Library Board has recorded the number of children with Asperger’s. The data show that there has been a recorded increase of 158%. That could be due to several factors, including greater awareness. I was interested in a recent report on the BBC programme ‘Newsnight’, where it was stated that in California, 3,000 new cases of autism are identified each year — a tenfold increase from the 1970s.
PAPA has made it clear that resources are not in place in the Department of Education or in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to deal adequately with the problem. The problem is not simply with Asperger’s syndrome, but with all autism conditions. Through the motion, I hope that the two Departments will take the problem seriously. I welcome what has already happened. Working together gives hope to those who suffer from this terrible condition.

Mrs Iris Robinson: I apologise to Mr Fee for missing his contribution to the debate and congratulate him for bringing the motion to the Assembly Floor.
There are 30,000 diagnosed Asperger’s sufferers in the UK. However, diagnosis is very subjective and is based on behavioural patterns rather than on any single test. Some Asperger’s sufferers are very successful — they often excel in academia — but are regarded as eccentric, clumsy or absent-minded. They do not like transitions and prefer routine. They fail to respond to non-verbal cues or body language and struggle to make relationships with their peers. Although there is no delay in language developmental milestones, people with Asperger’s syndrome may have a different way of using language. They tend to have a good vocabulary but do not appreciate the nuances of language.
They may have decreased social skills, including the avoidance of direct eye contact. Some sufferers can become very successful, with a tendency to immerse themselves in one subject. They often seem rude, but they simply have a different perspective on life and relationships. They become obsessed with complex topics in the fields of music, history or the weather, and they thrive on details that others would regard as obscure or irrelevant.
Their speech can be monotonous, repetitive and lacking in emotion and their conversations tend to revolve around themselves rather than anyone else. Many sufferers have dyslexia or have difficulty in writing. They can appear to have no common sense. In severe cases, sufferers can become depressed or aggressive.
The condition was first described by Hans Asperger, a physician from Vienna, who in the 1940s noticed marked deficiencies in social and communication skills in several young boys with normal intelligence. The condition seemed slightly more common in males, with many children diagnosed between the ages of five and nine.
Treatments vary and no one therapy works for everyone. Ritalin has been tried by some sufferers, but its use is controversial. It is crucial that diagnosis is prompt and early and that it is followed, as quickly as possible, by intervention at home and in school. The number of children diagnosed will continue to rise rapidly, so the planning of future resources must allow for the existence of many more sufferers than we are aware of today.
Training for parents and those working with children with autism spectrum disorders will become increasingly important. Society is ill-equipped to deal with the special educational needs of those children. A task group on autism set up in the Province produced its report earlier this year, after a comprehensive information-gathering process. I am not sure whether, by tabling the motion, Mr Fee wants to start a similar process. That would not be wise; I am not sure that anything new would be revealed. Although Asperger’s syndrome undoubtedly falls within the more able end of the autism spectrum, the key components in the management of all autistic children are the same. The task group report gives detailed guidelines on how to proceed. The difficult part will be the implementation of the recommendations, many of which are merely aspirational. The nuts and bolts needed to deliver those goals are crucial. All the best theories in the world are irrelevant until those with the condition and their families can recognise significant improvement in their daily lives. I support the motion.

Dr Ian Adamson: I also apologise for not being present at the start of the debate. I reiterate my support for the motion, which covers the full differential diagnosis of infantile autism, including Asperger’s syndrome, idiot savant, developmental dysphasia and dyslexia, and developmental right-hemisphere deficit syndrome. There is no evidence of normal development of particular functions with these conditions, which may involve partial disability. However, with other conditions there is evidence of normal pre-morbid development, for example, disintegrative psychosis, which may involve generalised disability, and childhood schizophrenia, which may involve partial disability.
Mr Speaker, I will not keep the House any longer, because you are more eloquent and well versed in this subject than I am. I support the motion.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Uasal Fee as deis a thabhairt dúinn riachtanais páistí agus aosach le siondróm Asperger a phlé. Thóg Comhaltaí ceisteanna agus ábhair imní tábhachtacha le linn na díospóireachta. Tá mé tiomanta dona chinntiú go mbeidh teacht ag páistí agus ag aosaigh a bhfuil neamhoird speictream uathachais orthu, lena n-áirítear iad siúd le siondróm Asperger, ar na seirbhísí agus an tacaíocht atá de dhíth orthu. Cuimsíonn seo comhoibriú idir mo Roinnse agus an Roinn Oideachais.
Léiríonn na figiúirí is deireannaí a sholáthraigh iontaobhais sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta gur diagnóisíodh 400 páiste agus 114 aosach le siondróm Asperger. Tá 159 páiste eile ag fanacht le diagnóis.
I thank Mr Fee for providing the opportunity to discuss the needs of adults and children who have Asperger’s syndrome. Members raised several important concerns during the debate.
I am committed to ensuring that children and adults with autistic spectrum disorders, including those with Asperger’s syndrome, have access to the necessary support and services. That includes co-operation between my Department and the Department of Education.
Several diagnostic tests for autism can be useful in particular cases. However, the absence of a test which is reliable across the spectrum of autistic disorders has caused professionals to be cautious of introducing universal screening for autism in children. The effects of Asperger’s syndrome may become apparent only as children become older or in adulthood. Improving professional awareness of the condition results in earlier diagnosis of the syndrome, which can now be detected in a child’s early years. The latest figures from the health and social services trusts show that 400 children and 114 adults have been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. A further 159 children await diagnosis.
Professional awareness helps to inform improved service provision; however, the pace of service development has been dictated by the availability of resources. Current service provision is typically met from learning disability and mental health programmes. Some £233 million was spent on those programmes in 2000-01. Although there are as yet no specific services for those with Asperger’s syndrome, health and social services boards report the development of generic services for people with autistic spectrum disorders. Examples include Down Lisburn Trust’s assessment and diagnostic team for autism, the establishment by Homefirst Trust of an autistic diagnostic team, autism diagnostic services at the Child Development Centre in Lurgan, and a specialist Asperger’s clinic run by the child and family psychiatric team.
Community-based child and adolescent mental health services have been developed in each trust in the Southern Board area, and a model of care for children with an autistic spectrum disorder has been developed in the Western Board area, through collaboration with the Western Education and Library Board, PAPA and the Foyle and Sperrin Lakeland Trusts. That is a start, but more work is necessary.
All trusts report that professional awareness is being addressed through training, and the Department is working with PAPA on the development of further training services. Professionals in community and specialist services provide support to parents. My Department funds projects run by PAPA, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to PAPA’s work. Officials from my Department are working with their counterparts, particularly on the implications of the task group report.
In this autism awareness year it is important to pay particular tribute to PAPA’s work in raising local awareness of autism in all its forms. The organisation has worked closely with health and social services in securing development and has been particularly successful in achieving the adoption of a special education programme, the treatment and education of autistic and related communication handicapped children (TEACCH), in several trust areas. At the same time, the organisation explores with healthcare professionals how awareness training might be improved.
The motion calls for a comprehensive review of services for people with Asperger’s syndrome. That work is being taken forward in the following ways. The report produced by the task group on the education of young people and children with autistic spectrum disorders, launched earlier this year by the Minister of Education, sets a comprehensive agenda for our two Departments to develop services and support for these children.
My Executive Colleague, Martin McGuinness, will say more about that.
I welcome the centre of excellence, which is a significant development. I understand that detailed proposals for that project are being developed, and officials from my Department are involved in that work to ensure that the necessary healthcare support is provided.
After the publication of the task group’s report, the Department asked the health and social services boards to assess its implications for health and personal social services, and to quantify the additional resources likely to be needed to develop relevant services. That work is nearing completion and mirrors work undertaken by the education and library boards. There is no doubt that a multi-agency and multi-professional approach is required to meet the holistic needs of people with Asperger’s syndrome.
Significantly, the Department’s Social Services Inspectorate has commenced an inspection of services for children with disabilities. The inspection will cover children with all types of disability; it will include children who have been hospitalised for three consecutive months and those who live in the community. The inspection team’s report is due in spring 2003.
Officials are in discussion with PAPA about the best way in which training for professionals should be implemented. Those discussions will also identify the financial support and any other support that the Department might be able to provide.
Children and adults with Asperger’s syndrome should be able to access the services and support required to meet their needs. Since I became the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the development of child and adolescent psychiatric services, learning disability services and mental health services have been high on my priorities for action. Expertise among health and social services professionals in that field is developing, and a range of specialist services are being put in place to meet the identified needs.
I shall continue to highlight the case for the necessary resources and to do all that I can, in conjunction with Executive Colleagues, to ensure that services are available as soon as possible.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I thank John Fee for highlighting the issue of services for children with Asperger’s syndrome and for providing Members with the opportunity to discuss recent developments. I was interested to hear several Members articulate what Asperger’s syndrome and autism are. The best example that I have witnessed was that of a 10-year-old boy called Kenneth Hall, who visited me at the Assembly. He has written a book in which he explains how autism affects him. I encourage all Members, and everyone who is interested in special educational needs, to read that book. It is a fascinating read; it has only around 100 pages and could be read in two hours, yet it gives a fantastic insight of a child who is affected by the syndrome.
As Minister of Education, I have repeatedly made clear my commitment to special educational needs. I remain committed to the development of high-quality services for children with special needs, their families and their schools. I have placed a strong emphasis on interdepartmental working to effect improvements in that area, not only between my Department and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, but between health and education Departments throughout Ireland and through collaboration with the voluntary sector.
John Fee, Paul Berry and Joe Hendron spoke about the need for a comprehensive review of the services that are available to people with Asperger’s syndrome. The Department is undertaking work on educational provision for children with Asperger’s syndrome in several ways. The task force on autism, which I launched earlier this year, has produced a comprehensive and hard-hitting report on the education of children and young people with autistic spectrum disorders. The report sets a challenge for those of us in the education and health sectors to work together to improve the diagnosis, assessment and educational provision for children with autism. The task force found that, in the past few years, education, health and social services provisions for children with autistic spectrum disorders have entered a period of rapid improvement.
The report made recommendations for significant improvement in three main areas: access to multi-agency and multi-disciplinary diagnostic and assessment services; training for parents of and people who work with children and young people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD); and school- and home-based educational and therapeutic provision.
My Department is planning a major conference, which will take place in a few weeks, for relevant education and health professionals who are involved in service planning and provision and for parents and representatives of voluntary organisations. That event will provide a focal point for discussion on how best to proceed with the recommendations of the tasks group’s report. Last year, my Department’s Education and Training Inspectorate published a survey of pupils with Asperger’s syndrome. Rev Robert Coulter mentioned that there is a perceived increase in levels of autism. In many ways we are satisfied that that increase can be explained by improved methods of detection. I have asked that the findings of that survey be considered in the light of the task group’s recommendations.
As well as those local developments, my Department has actively engaged in cross-border work to help improve ASD provision. It is significant that my Department and the Department of Education and Science in Dublin are actively involved in the establishment of a centre of excellence for autism which will be located in Middletown, County Armagh. All of us who are interested in this field are excited about what can be done at that centre. Detailed plans for the operation of the centre are under development, and we are trying to get it up and running by the autumn of next year.
The centre will provide diagnostic support and assessment services, training and advice for parents and teachers, an individual learning centre and ASD research and information services. Among other activities, my Department has worked with the voluntary organisation, PAPA, which has been mentioned several times in the debate and with which I met last week, to produce an information video for parents of children with autism as well as an awareness-raising digital versatile disc for teachers in mainstream schools who may be encountering autism for the first time.
Rev Robert Coulter also mentioned the interesting issue of what happens to children with special educational needs when they leave the education system after the age of 19. That affects children other than those with autism or Asperger’s syndrome, such as the many others who have special educational needs. I have been conscious of that, and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Minister for Employment and Learning and I met last week with our officials to tackle the matter head on. The three Departments have established a group of officials to deal with the difficulties outstanding.
I am determined that the education and library boards be equipped to deal with the issue and to enable children in the autism spectrum, including those with Asperger’s syndrome, to access the educational provision that can best meet their educational needs. Special educational needs remain at the top of my agenda, and I will use my best endeavours to secure the resources that are necessary to develop those important issues.

Mr Speaker: I should like to indicate my appreciation, not only of Members’ and Ministers’ general conciseness, but in particular of the proposer who volunteered to reduce his own comments to a few brief remarks so that all other Members who wished to speak could do so.

Mr John Fee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the fact that the two Ministers were here and gave such comprehensive commentary on what is going on. I should explain to Mrs I Robinson that the motion was originally tabled last October, but Members across the Chamber have accepted the spirit of the motion.
The thrust of the work of the two lead Departments, as well as the other Departments, must centre on three goals: early assessment, early diagnosis and early intervention. Everything must be subordinate to those goals. From what I have heard this morning, I am convinced that the two Ministers are heading in the right direction, and I appreciate that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Ministers of Education and Health, Social Services and Public Safety to instigate a comprehensive review of the services for people, adults and children with Asperger’s syndrome and of the training of professionals specialising in the treatment of such individuals.
The sitting was suspended at 12.30 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr J Wilson] in the Chair) —

Anti-Sectarianism

Mr Jim Wilson: I will advise Members as to how I propose to conduct the debate, which has been allocated two and a half hours by the Business Committee. Three amendments have been tabled and published on the Marshalled List. Speaking times will be as follows: the proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to wind up; the proposers of each of the amendments will have seven minutes to propose and five minutes to wind up; and all other Members will have five minutes each.
The amendments will be proposed in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List. When the debate has been concluded, I shall put the question on amendment 1. Whether or not amendment 1 is made, I shall put the question on amendment 2. However, amendment 3 may not be called if either of the other amendments is made. The Speaker’s ruling on this matter has been explained to the Business Committee at its lunchtime meeting. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

Mr Gerry Kelly: I beg to move that
In its belief that all sections of our community have the right to exist and all people have the right to live free from violence and intimidation whether at home, at school, or the workplace, this Assembly expresses its sympathy to all those who have been the victims of sectarian murder, violence and intimidation in recent times, and rejects sectarianism and commits itself to providing leadership on this issue in practical ways. That this Assembly also re-affirms its commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means to resolve disputes.
Go raibh maith agat, LeasCheann Comhairle. The motion should have been easy to pass — we kept it simple, to the point, easy to agree and non-controversial. We made every effort to get cross-party support. What does the motion say? It says simply that we express our sympathy to all victims of sectarianism and that all of us reject sectarianism and commit ourselves to practical means to eradicate it. Regardless of our political differences, the motion was designed to be a united and public voice of anti-sectarianism from the Assembly.
The Lord Mayor of Belfast, Belfast City Council, the trade union movement, and the Churches have all spoken out against recent sectarianism, and there is a movement towards anti-sectarianism building momentum, which must continue and grow. It is our turn to show leadership and strengthen the message.
As we all know, sectarianism is not a new phenomenon; it has been with us all our lives. However, in the past two years, the body of it has sat heavily on the so-called interfaces of Belfast, with its stinging tentacles reaching further afield into Larne, Derry and Antrim and to isolated families in all parts of the Six Counties. Sectarianism has been unrelenting in interface areas.
For those who may not know it, life for people in Alliance Avenue, Newington Street or in the Parkside, Clandeboye or Serpentine areas is a living hell. There is a constant expectation of a stone, petrol bomb, bullet or bomb coming through a kitchen or bedroom window. Family homes have rooms which cannot be used — beds are abandoned and kids sleep on camp beds, sofas or chairs in sitting rooms. Back or front doors are never used: nerve tablets are overused.
Sectarianism is the growing nervousness that never leaves: it is the alienating and isolating experience that is hard to comprehend, even if you live just a couple of streets away. It is living with buckets of sand and hosepipes and not redecorating the house because it is not worth it, and it is the deep anxiety every time your child or your spouse leaves the house.
What has made the problem stand out over the past few years is that it has been concentrated 24 hours a day on the same groups of ordinary families. I have been in their homes and know that others in the Assembly have been there also. The challenge often heard being offered to visitors or observers is to spend some nights living there: "Come and live with me in these homes and see what it is like."
That challenge is not made by people who wish to be clever or smart alecs. It is made because of the frustration felt by the victims of sectarian attacks. No matter how they describe their lives, they feel that others must experience them to understand how bad the situation really is.
In the past two years, six people have been killed by Loyalist attacks — four were Catholics and two were Protestants who were unfortunately mistaken for Catholics. There have been hundreds of gun and bomb attacks and innumerable other sectarian attacks on people and property. There is documented evidence of more than 360 sectarian attacks in a single three-month period. In north Belfast, since the Loyalist Commission’s "no first strike" statement on 15 June, we have seen at least 25 gun attacks, 29 bomb attacks and more than 66 other attacks, including stabbings, petrol bomb attacks and massive damage to property in the Nationalist part of the community.
Churches and schools have been far from immune, with the Holy Cross blockade serving as a dark monument to bigotry. Other Members, Unionist and Loyalist, can supply their own horrific lists. Although I can speak of the consequences and experience of anti-Catholic sectarian attacks only, I am not blind to the suffering of many Protestants over the various walls. The majority of sectarian attacks are against Catholics and Nationalists. However, the fact that Loyalists carry out the most significant proportion of attacks does not help Protestants who suffer from similar attacks. Therefore, we must make it crystal clear that we are against sectarianism, regardless of where it emanates from and whoever the victim may be.
The debate may turn into a dogfight. I hope that it does not, and it is certainly not the intention of the motion. People are suffering. They are watching this debate, and they want to know whether the Assembly can do anything to help them. A unified, anti-sectarian voice would go some way towards assisting them. Our parties are already meeting in a subgroup to try to find more practical ways to make progress. For example, agreeing a series of cross-community communications would be a practical step. Let us show our leadership today. Let the pro-agreement parties demonstrate their belief in dialogue as a process for resolution. We must lead by example on an issue that we can all support.
I call on the Assembly to support the motion. Go raibh maith agat, LeasCheann Comhairle.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I beg to move amendment No 1: In line 4 delete all after "victims of" and insert:
"terrorist murder, violence and intimidation, rejects Republican and Loyalist sectarianism and commits itself to providing leadership on this issue in practical ways. This Assembly re-affirms its commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means and calls upon all parties to actively support and co-operate with the Police Service of Northern Ireland in securing evidence against those involved in violence and in default of their ceasefires."
The UUP has tabled an amendment to Sinn Féin’s motion because that motion seems to mix pious aspiration with a complete abdication of responsibility on its part. Yes, sectarianism as it has developed in Northern Ireland is an evil. It is wrong that people’s views are warped by brutal prejudice. It is wrong that there is an inability to tolerate difference. Notice that I said "difference", because it is inevitable that there are differences in a plural society. It is wrong that parts of this city, and indeed the Province, are cut up into a patchwork of zones, between which many fear to move.
However, the Sinn Féin motion falls prey to a fallacy, which is that, in a sense, everyone is to blame, so that therefore no one in particular is to blame. The motion, from Sinn Féin’s point of view, does not face the uncomfortable truth that paramilitaries’ activities have often been major drivers of sectarian tension. Alas, such terrorist groups are still active, and, in many respects, the Loyalist groups are often as bad as, and sometimes worse than, Republican groups. The wording of our amendment tries to reflect that point.
I am not an exponent of some notion of collective or communal guilt. However, in moving the amendment, I recognise that sometimes parts of Unionism — broadly defined — have not met its high ideals, and that they have had a nasty underbelly in their treatment of other sections of the population.
The UUP is certainly not soft on Loyalist paramilitarism. I do not distinguish between those terrorists who are considered to be "our terrorists" and, therefore, by implication, excusable, and other terrorists — "their terrorists" — who are deemed to be inexcusable. They are all simply wrong.
The record has been dismal, and, sadly, it is not yet a history on which the book has been definitively closed. Since 1969, as is well known, almost 3,700 lives have been lost. Of these, about 59% were the responsibility of Republican terrorist groups, and a further 28% died at the hands of Loyalists. There were up to 50,000 injuries, too. If one is to be seriously anti-sectarian then one must call for a halt to all paramilitary activity, and for this to be done in transparent and verifiable ways. For example, there must be an end to the exiling of unfortunate individuals from their homes in Northern Ireland. There must be an end to torture beatings — the so-called punishment beatings. The August 2001 report titled ‘They Shoot Children Don’t They’ by Prof Liam Kennedy says that during the three years 1998 to 2000 there were 636 Loyalist shootings and 496 Republican ones — one fifth and one third of these victims, respectively, were under the age of 20.
The Sinn Féin motion, which we are attempting to amend, concludes weakly by asking the Assembly to reaffirm its commitment to peaceful politics. That is all very well, but is an evasion of responsibility on its part. The Westminster Government have responsibility for applying adequate standards for the maintenance of the rule of law. In this regard, one might contrast and compare Prime Minister Blair’s pliable approach to that of his Spanish counterpart, Mr Aznar, who has recently banned the political apologists of the Basque terrorist grouping, ETA. As we saw last autumn, international public opinion — especially American — has a crucial role in the restraint of terrorism in this part of the world, as in other parts.
Ultimately, Sinn Féin should recognise its own responsibility. Will it, as our amendment suggests, accept that the PSNI has a majority support in public opinion, and is the sole legitimate force to apply the rule of law? Finally, how does the motion, with its various pious exhortations, compare with the recent IRA apology? Will Sinn Fein now be in a position to condemn all deaths inflicted by paramilitaries since 1969, which would be a constructive step towards improving the climate for reducing sectarianism?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I beg to move amendment No 2 standing in my name and the names of my colleagues: In line 2 delete all after "intimidation" and insert:
"this Assembly expresses its sympathy to all the innocent victims of terrorist attack, murder, violence and intimidation, notes the continued participation by all paramilitary groupings in a campaign of violence and street disorder thus confirming the breakdown of their ceasefires and therefore calls upon the community to support the Police Service of Northern Ireland as part of the battle against all types of terrorism and continuing disorder. This Assembly affirms its commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means."
At the outset it is interesting to note that neither of the Members who have spoken has made an attempt to define the word "sectarianism", and it is here that we have to come to grips with the motion before the House today. The word "sectarian" comes from the word "sect". I looked at the Catholic encyclopedia to find out what it had to say officially, as a Church, about this matter.
To the Catholic the distinction between Church and sect presents no difficulty. For him, any Christian denomination that has set itself up independently of his own Church is a sect. According to Catholic teaching, any Christians who banded together and refused to accept the entire doctrine, or acknowledge the supreme authority, of the Catholic Church constitute merely a religious party under human, unauthorised leadership. The Catholic Church alone is that universal society, instituted by Jesus Christ, which has a rightful claim to the allegiance of all men. It is the sole custodian of the complete teaching of Jesus Christ, which must be accepted in its entirety by all mankind. Its members do not constitute a sect, nor will they consent to be known as such. The word "sectarian" was coined in Reformation times to label those opposed to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church.
When I was being brought up in the Province, Nationalist politicians labelled everything that was Protestant as sectarian. The Orange Institution, Protestant churches, the police, the old House of Commons here, and so on, were labelled as sectarian.
We see the hypocrisy of a party that represents those who have murdered and wrought mayhem through our Province; who, in their bloodlust, have slain men, women and children; and who have also laid their hands on their co-religionists because they associated in any way with Protestant people. Sinn Féin then tells us that this is a simple resolution. Of course it is — because in its interpretation, its members are not sectarian. I have heard them boast in the House that they are not sectarian. We are asked today to give them an excuse — to join with them in an absolutely meaningless resolution.
The word "sectarian" must be defined. I ran into one of the leading Protestant clergymen of the Province the other day. I did not have a confrontation with him; I met him in the British Airways lounge in London. I asked him why clergymen do not tell people what sectarianism is. He said, "Ian, it is a very convenient word; we like it." We should not be dealing with conveniences in the House; we should be dealing with realities. It is a reality that this word, with which Nationalism and Republicanism has branded Protestantism for a long time and to this day, should be set in its proper context.
I was struck recently by the contents of the report on children. I am sorry that the full report was not made available to us by our information services; part of it was omitted. However, it is interesting to note that when children were asked whether they liked the police, three-year-old Roman Catholic children were more than twice as likely to say that they hated the police as were Protestant children of that age. The seeds that IRA/Sinn Féin has sown are bearing fruit, as it has brought its people up to hate the police. Hence, there is no mention of the police or support for the police in the motion.
The Official Unionist resolution is not strong enough; it should have been far stronger. We must affirm, not reaffirm. What is the use of calling people who say they have already affirmed this resolution? There has been no real affirmation that everyone in the Assembly is committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The acts of those who proposed the motion and lead the debate today give the lie to that very effectively.
We need only to look at IRA/Sinn Féin’s record. It has been updating weapons and bomb techniques in Colombia; exchanging tips with its colleagues in the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) movement; rearming from Russia and Florida; and targeting leading political, judicial, security, forensic and Loyalist figures using updated intelligence files. It has been identified as the major line of inquiry into the break-in at Special Branch headquarters in Castlereagh; has murdered dozens of individuals in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Belfast Agreement; and has been consistent in its role as judge and jury in the community to say who will be beaten, shot, murdered and intimidated. Recently, it has orchestrated terrible violence against the Belfast community. Let us throw out this hypocritical and treacherous motion.

Mr Alex Attwood: I beg to move amendment No 3: In line 3 delete all after "school" to line 6 "in practical ways" and insert:
"in workplaces, in local communities and in political and policing institutions, this Assembly expresses its sympathy for all those who have been murdered in the course of the current conflict, to all those who have been subject to violence and intimidation from whatever source, rejects sectarianism and commits itself to provide leadership on the issue in practical ways, including: support for local efforts to develop opportunities for good relations; by calling on political parties to oppose any words, actions or displays of a sectarian nature; and by emphasising the importance that the police ensure that vulnerable communities are adequately protected and that those who direct or are involved in criminal or sectarian activities are prosecuted."
I will outline the SDLP’s two-phased approach to the motion and the amendments. First, if the political leadership of Northern Ireland is to demonstrate its political calibre, it should do more than simply talk; it should take practical steps to confront sectarianism, and it should begin to outline what those steps should be. The SDLP’s amendment is the only one that outlines a strategic approach to deal with sectarianism and to see that it is dealt a body blow.
Secondly, the motion and the other amendments are, to a greater or lesser extent, partial or selective in the treatment of sectarianism. The Assembly should be holistic and inclusive in dealing with sectarianism. Whatever sectarianism is, we must pursue, prosecute, penalise and purge it from wherever it resides in society. We should not ignore or forget the fact that that includes the political parties and Members.
However, where there is genuine alienation and dissent, and where people are genuinely distressed or in conflict with the state, we must interpret and understand that dissent and learn from it. That balanced approach, and a ruthless confrontation of sectarianism and an understanding of what is genuinely alienating in our communities, is the prescription to deal with the problem.
The SDLP proposes a three-pronged offensive against sectarianism, part of which has already been put in place at interfaces and through the political institutions. However, it must be upgraded and fast-forwarded.
The first of those three dimensions is security, which requires that the PSNI provide adequate protection and vigorous prosecution of those involved in sectarian tensions and interface violence. It requires mechanisms at locations of tension and disorder so that people in the community, and those working in the institutions of the state who are trying to manage tensions, can deal with them better. It also requires mechanisms, probably put in place by third-party agencies, to ensure that, even though there is mistrust and differences at those interfaces, a third party can maintain communication between the communities.
The second dimension involves a community element, which would include putting mechanisms in place to manage interface and sectarian tensions better. It would also involve the creation of a community mechanism, whereby people can begin to process the issues that have given rise to their worst fears and which fuel sectarian tensions and interface violence. That is a medium-term structured approach to dealing with sectarianism and bad community relations.
The third dimension is the political element, and requires sustained dialogue not only between parties but also between parties and Government in order to understand what is happening on the ground and to begin to develop shared strategies for confronting sectarianism. In the longer term our understanding is upgraded, and economic, social and community strategies are put in place to ensure that all expressions of sectarianism are dealt a body blow.
It is the three-pronged security, community and political strategy that in the immediate, medium and long term can begin to address the issue. However, we still have a long road to travel, and that is evident in some of the content of the motion and the amendments, which are selective and partial. That ill informs this debate and ill informs our community as it struggles with the excesses of sectarianism.
Why are the motion and the amendments partial? It is because, as we might have anticipated, Unionism sees sectarianism arising from features and factors in our society other than from the past nature of the state and the past conduct of agencies of the state. That has caused people to have worst fears rather than best hopes about elements within the state and has seen them experience bad practice and conduct at the hands of the state. If we do not acknowledge that, then we are not acknowledging all of the truth.
Similarly, the Sinn Féin motion is partial because while it condemns intimidation, Sinn Féin refused to condemn the intimidation of PSNI trainees. It condemns threats and disorder, yet Sinn Féin members, in a council chamber in the North in the last 10 days, openly threatened SDLP people who are taking part in district policing partnerships. They asked if the people concerned had spoken to their families about what they were doing, whether they would be carrying firearms, whether they knew that posters of them would appear on lampposts all over Newry and if they knew who was going to pay for the damage caused to their houses while they sat on the district policing partnerships.

Mr Jim Wilson: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr Alex Attwood: When it comes to intimidation, we should all be honest about what we are doing.

Mr Seamus Close: If we had a normal society that was based on trust and tolerance, and in which we all worked together in good faith for the benefit of all, such a motion, even as tabled by Sinn Féin, could probably be passed unanimously without debate. Yet, four years after the Good Friday Agreement, we are using such a motion and three partial amendments to demonstrate the lack of trust that exists in the House and, thus, in the wider population. Today we are exposing the tribal divides that exist in Northern Ireland.
Sectarianism is rife. The intolerance that goes with it is part of the daily diet throughout Northern Ireland. Hardly a day passes without some graphic reminder of some group or individual vomiting intolerance upon another. It is indisputable that this intolerance is primarily orchestrated by the bigotry of thugs and gangsters collectively referred to as paramilitary organisations from both Loyalist and Republican factions.
Their quest to gain and maintain control of areas and people through terror is a scourge, which can be used to the potential gain of some who will constantly blame the other side and ignore the faults of their own. If all the elected representatives in the House were genuinely opposed to all violence and to the use or threat of force by others, I do not believe that we would be witnessing the level of intolerance that exists on our streets today. We are supposed to represent the community.
Let us look at the statistics. In 1999-2000 there were 131 shooting incidents. In 2001-02 there were 358. In 1999-2000 there were 66 bombing incidents, and in 2001-02 there were 318. Each and every one of those incidents is an example of bigoted, tribal sectarianism that underpins intolerance.
Four years ago, Members who supported the Good Friday Agreement reaffirmed their opposition to any use or threat of force by others. Is the political leadership in this House so weak that it has no impact upon the society that we are supposed to be leading — or is a blind eye being turned to violence for political reasons? Even worse, are some political parties happy to ride on the back of the terrorist monster and help to feed its insatiable appetite?
It is not only security statistics that highlight bigoted sectarianism: our cities, towns, villages and estates provide colourful evidence of intolerance. There is the illegal painting of paths, kerbs and roadways with green, white and gold or red, white and blue. There are the illegal murals glorifying murderers on gable walls and depicting some murderous exploit by thugs — inviting the gullible to join illegal organisations. There are the slogans informing us that we are entering Loyalist or Republican estates; the scrawled messages that the police are not acceptable, and the flying of an assortment of flags from every possible post or pole. This is the overt evidence of intolerance and a warning to the "other side" that they are not welcome. The desecration of churches and graveyards and the burning of schools are further examples of sectarianism at its worst.
All so-called paramilitary organisations — be they the UDA, IRA, UFF, Continuity IRA, real-fat IRA or low-fat UDA — are by their nature and existence sectarian, bigoted and intolerant. They exist to instil terror and thus promote their bigoted and sectarian cause.
The motion refers to providing practical leadership on sectarianism. Let us start by supporting the PSNI. Policing cannot work effectively without the support of the entire community. If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. Those who threaten the police or withhold their support from the police or who are seen to be anti-police are demonstrating bigotry in adherence to their political doctrine or intolerance: they are sectarian.
How can one claim to reject sectarianism while at the same time refuse to support a cross-community police service whose raison d’être is to provide effective, good policing throughout the community — the word "hypocrisy" springs to mind.
Another example of political leadership would be to call for the immediate disbandment of all paramilitary organisations.

Mr Patrick Roche: Before I address the IRA/Sinn Féin motion I want to reiterate the NIUP’s rejection of paramilitary violence. The Republican movement and the so-called Loyalist terror groups are mirror images of each other with a common commitment to criminality, murder and barbarity. Despite those considerations, the NIUP also rejects the motion tabled by the members of IRA/Sinn Féin because it is shot through with gross moral hypocrisy. I say that for four reasons.
First, the motion is being tabled by members of IRA/Sinn Féin, an organisation that is a murder machine that has been responsible for the murder and injury of thousands of people over many decades. Secondly, the active membership of IRA/Sinn Féin is sustained by the driving force of a political sectarianism — a denigration and hatred of fellow citizens because of their religious and political commitments. That is what drives IRA/Sinn Féin. Despite that, the motion asks Members to express sympathy to all those who have been the victims of sectarian murder. It is difficult to conceive of a more blatant example of gross moral hypocrisy.
Thirdly, the motion is being tabled by members of an organisation whose leader is an unqualified apologist for IRA murder. In the ‘Politics of Irish Freedom’ Gerry Adams states without the slightest indication of moral scruple:
"The tactic of armed struggle",
that is, IRA/Sinn Féin terrorism,
"is of primary importance because it provides a vital cutting edge. Without it the issue of Ireland would not even be an issue."
The Sinn Féin leader’s commitment to armed struggle — that is, to IRA bombing and murder — is entirely incompatible with any genuine commitment to what the motion refers to as non-violent and exclusively peaceful and democratic means to resolve disputes.
Fourthly, the motion requiring the Assembly to express its sympathy to all those who have been the victims of sectarian murder is signed by a member of IRA/Sinn Féin who is a convicted murderer. In 1973, Gerry Kelly was convicted, along with Marian and Dolores Price, for planting four bombs in London, two of which exploded, killing one person and wounding 180 others.

Mr Gerry Kelly: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member is wrong. He is absolutely erroneous, and he should not be allowed to continue with the accusations that he is making. It is not the first time that he has made accusations in the House.

Mr Robert McCartney: What did you do?

Mr Gerry Kelly: Are you making a point of order?

Mr Jim Wilson: Order. It is the convention in such circumstances to ask Members to clarify their remarks so as to remove the objections to them or to withdraw them. If he or she is not prepared to clarify or withdraw his or her remarks, further action may be unavoidable. I ask the Member to clarify.

Mr Patrick Roche: I am quoting directly from the explicit reference to Mr Kelly in Liam Clarke’s recent book on Martin McGuinness, and if the Member has any problem with that he has access to the courts.
The UUP amendment fails to grasp the real strategic intent of the IRA/Sinn Féin motion —

Mr Jim Wilson: Order. The Member who made the point of order has refuted the allegation. I ask the Member who made the allegation to clarify it again.

Mr Patrick Roche: The Member has not refuted the allegation. He may have denied the allegation, but he certainly has not refuted it. You need to make a distinction between a refutation and a denial.

Mr Gerry Kelly: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There has been no charge against me at any time in the past of murder, and I was not convicted of murder. It is erroneous.

Mr Jim Wilson: I invite Mr Roche to withdraw his earlier remark.

Mr Patrick Roche: My remarks are based on a book written by a leading authority on the IRA. This gentleman has denied that, but he certainly has not refuted it, so there is no reason for me to withdraw the remark.

Mr Jim Wilson: That being so, Mr Roche, I have no option but to take action under Standing Order 60(1) and ask you to withdraw immediately from the Chamber and its precincts for the remainder of today’s sitting.
The Member withdrew from the Chamber.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not understand your ruling, Sir, and I would like clarification on it. An accusation which has been published and widely circulated and has never been challenged by the Member has been read to the House, but because the Member against whom the allegation was made denies it, you say that the Member who made the allegation must withdraw. Is it the rule of the House that anyone who makes an accusation against any Member, which that Member denies, has to leave the Assembly? Is that the effect of your ruling?

Mr Jim Wilson: I was in the course of giving my ruling. I referred to guidance that was given by the Speaker on earlier occasions, and I quoted from that ruling verbatim. However, as the Member has questioned that ruling, I will consider what he said and advise him of my ruling later.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is all very well, Sir, for you to say that. However, the sentence has been carried out. You put a Member out of the House for quoting hard evidence from a book that has never been challenged. If that is the sort of ruling we can expect in the House, we cannot expect democracy.

Mr Jim Wilson: Order.
The Member who was accused refuted the accusation. I stand by my ruling. The sentence has been carried out, and I call Dr David Ervine. Sorry, Mr Ervine.

Mr Gregory Campbell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Roche, Member for Lagan Valley, referred in certain terms to a Mr Kelly from north Belfast. When pressed, he elaborated upon his source material. If there is a problem with the source material and a successful appeal against it in the courts, the person who used the material may be asked to withdraw at that point — but not until then.

Mr Jim Wilson: I have given my ruling.

Mr David Ervine: I have been elevated. It seems that I am now Dr Ervine — among many doctors in this place.
We heard an academic qualification of sectarianism from Dr Paisley. I can only comment on what I understand it to be: namely the degree of brutality and irrational division that exists in this society. It is not a one-sided situation.
We should consider the fact that there are people who hate each other, yet they know not the person whom they hate. That to me seems alien to the human condition, yet we seem to be pretty comfortable with it. Having listened to the debate so far, one would think that sectarianism was happening only today for today, and that it did not lay the foundations of this society, and that we were not all generated in an atmosphere of hate and bitterness.
That was amplified by the amendment proposed by my Colleague, Esmond Birnie, which says that the House "rejects Republican and Loyalist sectarianism". What does it say about sectarianism in the schools and on the street corners — not just that on interfaces or involving paramilitaries? There is no mention or hint of the sectarianism that is expressed in drawing rooms.
The three amendments seem to suggest that if all the bad people would just go away, Northern Ireland would be a wonderful place.
In fact, the bad people come from the womb of this society. The politics of this society influence the way in which they live their lives — the divisive, hateful politics that guarantee that the politicians will never want a single community, because they benefit so much from a divided one. There is no question that we in this Chamber luxuriate in sectarianism, because there is great merit in, and benefit to be gained from, attacking the other side.
Some people might suggest that the demise of the Alliance Party is a result of its argument that two communities should come together and function as one. Recent electoral performances suggest that the extremists on both sides benefit from the tensions and bitterness of this sectarian, divided society. We have a problem that has not been defined by the motion or the amendments: our people are sectarian.
Since I have been on this earth — and my appearance belies my 49 years — I do not remember anyone, certainly no one in the political arena, trying to deal with sectarianism. All those who have been politicians for a long time — or even a short time — should look at their failure even to address the issue let alone deal with it.
There are places in Northern Ireland where there are few paramilitaries but a great deal of sectarianism. Of course, there are places where there are plenty of paramilitaries and plenty of sectarianism: it would be foolish to refute that. Our communities, which have been led by many in the Chamber, are sectarian, and one could argue that they are encouraged to be so. In many ways drawing-room sectarianism is more insidious and frightening than working-class sectarianism. At working-class level it is brutal, and we see it all the time. However, we can deal with it. Many people in the Chamber come from places where drawing-room sectarianism is at its worst, and they have luxuriated and benefited as society, divided more and more, crashes on the rocks.

Ms Jane Morrice: People have said that the Assembly is out of touch when it comes to responding to sectarian trouble on our streets: we are not. We are deeply concerned about sectarian violence, and we must be deeply involved in the fight against it — a point made by David Ervine.
This debate shows that we are at least starting to face up to sectarianism, and that is why it is important. However, we are disappointed that there are so many variations of wording before the House today. What kind of message does it send to the public? This debate should not be about ownership of the fight against sectarianism — that is very important. It must be about a united front against sectarian bigotry. Through unanimity today we can show that we are ready to move forward together. It is only if we act together that we can truly fight sectarianism.
I recall the debate on the motion on firefighters’ pay. The DUP supported the UUP amendment. Sinn Féin and the PUP withdrew their amendments to support the DUP motion amended by the UUP — that is called co-operation.

A Member: It is not the real world.

Ms Jane Morrice: It may not be the real world, but it was the Assembly yesterday. Firefighters’ pay is an issue we all believe in. Why can we not do the same thing as regards sectarianism? I accept that perhaps we are not ready to co-operate to the same extent; however, we must move towards that.
We need action, not just fine words. Members should be aware of their responsibilities because just as leadership against sectarianism can calm a situation, inflammatory rhetoric can make divisions more bitter.
Alex Attwood talked about the three phases of dealing with sectarianism. In the short term, we must tackle and control the naked violence that results from sectarianism. However, in the long term, we must also tackle the drawing-room sectarianism that Mr Ervine mentioned. Therefore we propose that politicians adopt a code of conduct for dealing with interface violence; that they commit themselves to that code and do not play the blame game or seek to score points, which makes divisions worse. They must try to meet or to visit all sides in a conflict if they are to get involved.
I agree with Séamus Close that we must have support for the PSNI. If we ask the police to protect people on all sides and contain the violent clashes on our streets, they must have the support of all politicians.
Political dialogue must go beyond scribbled sectarian slogans on walls or megaphone diplomacy using loudhailers and the media. Politicians must get together in a room and look for practical steps that they can take.
The Women’s Coalition welcomes the initiative of the Northern Ireland Office Minister, Des Brown, to tackle the problem and to get all parties involved. However, my party recognises that sectarianism will not disappear overnight; it would be unrealistic to expect that. Sectarianism must be challenged on all fronts — in education, the media, community relations, schools and churches, and by politicians.
The recent report produced for Barnardo’s by the University of Ulster, which cites three-year-olds who use sectarian language, proves a point that I have not heard mentioned in the debate — the value of integrated education. Where is integrated education in the Assembly’s long-term strategy of trying to understand one another? The integrated education model is superb for those reasons, but where is the political support for it? Where are the resources for integrated education?
Advertising campaigns and more support for community workers are required. The work of community workers in interface areas is praised, but why must they scramble for money to get the resources that they need? There have been amazing initiatives that have provided much help, but much more is needed. Experts must be gathered together in a forum so that they can tackle sectarianism together.
The Women’s Coalition welcomes Sinn Féin’s reaffirmation of its commitment to non-violence and to the resolution of disputes through exclusively peaceful means. However, the motion should go further, and although my party believes that the SDLP’s amendment does go further, it does not go far enough.

Mr Robert McCartney: The tabling of the motion by members of IRA/Sinn Féin represents a new height in monumental, gut-wrenching hypocrisy. Mr Adams might like to tell the House what contribution he made against sectarianism when he carried the coffin of a man who murdered nine innocent people in a fish shop. The Minister of Education might like to inform the House of the part that he played in the death of Mr Gillespie at a checkpoint in Derry. Various others could make contributions about the La Mon House Hotel, Kingsmills, the Droppin’ Well and countless other atrocities.
The truth is that every party in the Assembly has its own definition of sectarianism, and every party thinks that sectarianism comes from the other side. Therefore, no party has any difficulty in condemning sectarianism, as the various shades of condemnation in the motion and the three amendments demonstrate. The only dispute is about the exact form of words to be used in that condemnation.
The truth is that the Assembly is a cathedral of sectarianism. That is shown in the institutions, the communal designations of Unionist, Nationalist and Other, the d’Hondt principles for the selection of Ministers, and the ritual and dogma of the sectarianism that is practised in the Assembly. The truth is that no one wants to admit that the Assembly is founded on institutionalised sectarianism. No one should be surprised that a political system that is based and built on sectarianism encourages and magnifies that sectarianism throughout society. That is happening on the streets as the relationship between the two communities deteriorates.
The Belfast Agreement has not brought peace. It has not brought reconciliation. It has brought into being institutions that are guaranteed to increase division and community hatred, and to foment the sort of confrontation that is seen on the streets. The public is entitled to be dissatisfied with the efforts of a political class that aggravates a problem and then blames everyone else because things are getting worse. I referred to that yesterday in a question to the Deputy First Minister during Question Time.
Mr Attwood spoke about purging and prosecuting everyone, including parties and Members. What has the SDLP done about Sinn Féin? It has protected Sinn Féin on every occasion that an attempt was made to purge it.
What have the Ulster Unionists done about the PUP? They utilised their votes to have the First Minister — an Ulster Unionist — elected. The truth is that sectarianism is rife and manifest throughout all the institutions of the Assembly.
An American politician was once asked, "What is your position on sin?". He readily replied, "I am agin it." In a similar way, all parties in the Assembly are piously queuing up to condemn sectarianism.
Mr Ervine, whose usual performance is an amalgam of Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and the local probation officer, tells us of dreadful sectarianism in the drawing room while the organisation that he fronts is shooting, murdering, beating, exiling and intimidating its own co-religionists. Exactly the same thing is happening among the party and Members of the group represented by that other newfound member of the piety association, Gerry Kelly.
The truth is that the Assembly should be leading the way by purging those representatives in the Assembly who front the paramilitaries, who in turn benefit from the exploitation of the people on the street. That must be our first step.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the Sinn Féin motion, which simply seeks the support of Members in rejecting sectarianism and committing ourselves to provide leadership in practical ways on that issue. All three amendments seek to avoid the issue by turning the debate on sectarianism — the sickness that has afflicted the north-eastern part of Ireland for hundreds of years — into a debate on whether the RUC, or whatever name it now goes under, is acceptable.
Should we be surprised? Politicians who have refused to acknowledge their part in the sectarian violence of the past years and have abandoned any attempts to address the issue can only seek to hide behind an organisation founded on the sectarian headcount of a Protestant state for a Protestant people and a Protestant paramilitary police force, whose inbuilt allegiance was to uphold that state.
The ethos is still the same. Where else in the world would an assistant chief constable unequivocally state that an illegal organisation, the UDA, is behind the sectarian violence in north Belfast, which resulted in shots and blast bombs being fired from Tiger’s Bay at the police and army, and do nothing about it? There were no house searches or arrests, and no UDA leaders were even questioned.
Can you imagine what would happen if the Assistant Chief Constable said that the IRA was responsible for throwing blast bombs at the police? Unionists would be fighting their way to John Reid and the media demanding action, and we would be picking the bodies of Nationalists off the ground.
People looking into the communal disturbances, which are the essence of the motion, may wonder at the utterances from Unionist politicians who, rather than confront sectarianism, are seeking to excuse the violent excesses of their community that Alan McQuillan talked about, and which they euphemistically describe as law-abiding citizenship.
What’s new? Religious violence, sectarianism and Unionism are inextricably linked — it has been that way since 1830. If people want to understand the connection, they should read Andrew Boyd’s book, ‘Holy War in Belfast’, which says a great deal about sects and even more about clergymen fermenting sectarianism. He attributes the rise in sectarian violence then as a reaction to the tolerant and liberal alliance between Catholics and Presbyterians in the early 1800s; an alliance that the English and the wealthy landlord class sought to destroy through the vehicles of Orangeism and class conflict.
The Orange Order generated the first religious sectarian riots in Belfast, and it still generates them.
The essayist Robert Lynd once wrote that all history is but a repetition of the same story, with variations. We can trace the history of sectarianism and violence from the Sandy Row riots in 1835 to Drumcree, the Ardoyne, Tiger’s Bay and all the interface violence that has inflicted so much suffering on those communities that have been on the receiving end. Sectarian murder, intimidation, threats and violence, whether against schoolchildren, workers or community leaders, are evils that must be eradicated.
It is sad to see a new generation of Loyalist paramilitaries — many of whom are no more than young people — involved in violent sectarianism that does not even attempt to disguise itself as a political front. Why should people be surprised if the pathological nature of sectarianism, especially in the working-class Unionist population, is worked out against that small Catholic enclave in the Short Strand, Skegoneill or Holy Cross Primary School? It merely carries on the tradition of Harryville, Garvaghy Road and the burning of the little Quinn children in Ballymoney. After all, they are carrying on the tradition of the north Belfast community that spawned the Shankill Butchers. It is not surprising that the majority of sectarian violence takes place in the traditional Unionist strongholds of north and east Belfast, Coleraine and Antrim, which are areas represented by DUP Assemblymen — [Interruption].

Mr Jim Wilson: Order. The Member will resume her seat.

Mr Ken Robinson: I support the UUP amendment, which seeks to address the democratic view of civic society, namely that sectarianism from any quarter deserves to be rejected. The amendment affords every party and every individual who believes in the democratic process an opportunity to publicly register their rejection of sectarianism. It will also provide Members with an opportunity to expose the blatant hypocrisy of the Sinn Féin motion, which has revealed the party’s true agenda, highlighted its failure to grasp the central tenets of democracy and exposed its political bankruptcy. It has shown Sinn Féin’s inability to decommission that bunker mentality that leads it to deny that those to whom it is inextricably linked are up to their necks in the orchestration of sectarian violence where and when they want it.
Perhaps the pertinent question is why they want it and, more specifically, why they want it now. Could the scandal of sectarian attacks in Cluan Place literally have provided a convenient smokescreen to divert attention from those embarrassing adventures in Castlereagh, Cuba and Colombia? Could the Sinn Féin/IRA dilemma be so serious that, not content with 200 serious attacks on Orange Halls and with preventing Orange parades passing along major thoroughfares, the only way that it can find to employ its foot soldiers is to engage them in physical attacks on Orangemen and isolated Protestant communities?
Perhaps it is a cynical attempt to divert media attention from the continuing failure of Sinn Féin/IRA to honour its commitment to decommission fully. I am sure that the mover of the motion can offer an insight into that situation. After all, he appears to have been present at more Orange parades than the Grand Master himself.
The continuing Republican pogrom against the elderly and vulnerable residents of the White City, Glenbryn and Twaddell Avenue was suddenly switched, as if by magic, to include the isolated communities of Thistle Court and Cluan Place. Why? Perhaps it was not for the reasons that I have outlined. Perhaps Republican habits die hard and the tactics that led to the expulsion of Protestants from the border areas, the west bank of the Foyle, and Churchill Park, Ballyoran Park and Garvaghy Road in Portadown are too engrained in the Republican psyche.
Perhaps they are not democrats at all, but are merely pursuing their war by other means. That is why they have such difficulty saying that the war is over. Today presents an opportunity for the mover of the motion and his Colleagues to assure the House that they totally and unequivocally reject attacks by Republicans on those besieged communities. They may also avail themselves of the opportunity provided by this debate to call for the immediate and total cessation of those attacks.
At this point I should mention that when a Catholic workman in my East Antrim constituency was murdered by Loyalists I, together with the local community, unreservedly condemned that killing. On President Clinton’s second visit to this Building, I referred to that killing to illustrate the need for total decommissioning by all paramilitaries, using the following words:
"Mr President, anyone, anywhere, at any time with access to illegal weapons can commit the sort of murder that was recently perpetrated in my constituency. It must stop!"
Needless to say, President Clinton agreed to work towards the cessation of such acts.
I was under the impression that every Member was pledged to remove such violence from our streets. Sadly, it is obvious that some still cannot decommission that mindset and are willing to pursue the "blame game" approach. They remind me of the alcoholic, whose first step towards salvation is to admit that he has a problem. Until Sinn Féin members admit that they have a problem, they are caught in their straitjacket. They blame the Loyalists, the Unionists, the Orange Order, the RUC and the PSNI. Only last night, they blamed the police ombudsman. It is no wonder that they oppose the installation of closed-circuit television cameras at interface areas, or that existing cameras are subject to sustained attack to put them out of action. Why the sudden reluctance to use the power of the media, after so many successful years of manipulating it? The video cameras and other evidence from the White City and Twaddell Avenue show a very different face of the real Republican approach to sectarian violence, and it is not a pleasant sight.
Moreover, Mr Maskey, whose name is also on the motion, has failed to grasp that the activities of his organisation over the years have led to the perception of the flag which he recently installed in his office as a sectarian symbol rather than the flag of a neighbouring European state.

Mr Jim Wilson: Order.

Mr Ken Robinson: It is seen as a shameless symbol of sectarianism after decades of misuse at the hands of Sinn Féin — incidentally, a point which the Republic of Ireland has failed to grasp.

Mr Jim Wilson: Order. Order.

Mr Oliver Gibson: The origin and definition of sectarianism have been stated clearly. Sectarianism is the creation of Roman Catholicism. In Ireland, that was always a stated doctrinal position. Some Members will remember the slogan repeated in this generation: "A Catholic school for Catholic pupils by Catholic teachers". Cardinal Connell got it right. He was stating the sectarian, domineering position that the Church always aspired to hold. That meant that, although it could be lax in its doctrine, it was always intolerant of the legitimate demands of others.
That is the hallmark of sectarianism, and it has been injected into the political life of practically every century of our history. The greatest sectarian position was taken in universities and schools. It was followed, however, by the very serious destroying, disestablishing and dismantling of anything that was considered an obstacle to the Church’s domineering position.
That pursuit and that position are being repeated. Violence, intimidation and all other expedients can be accommodated as long as they assist in the pursuit of domination. That is the theological equivalent of those who moved the motion today, a political statement of a theological position. In 1904, "Ourselves alone" was the political equivalent of the theological position of the proposer’s church. More recently, the term "Tiocfaidh ár lá" may have been used, but it has the same meaning and domination and is the sectarian equivalent.

Mr Denis Haughey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Oliver Gibson: No, I have only a few seconds left.
There are those who try to escape and deny their sectarian heritage. I was amazed to hear some of the statements made here today. Robert McCartney was right to say that the Belfast Agreement is institutionalised sectarianism, and Members must accept that, because it was the wish of many. Advocates of the Belfast Agreement view it as the road to their aspiration of a united Ireland, whether under the slogan "Tiocfaidh ár lá" or "Ourselves alone", or through another sectarian creation of the church. Perhaps the greatest example of this last occurred just over two decades ago when, on the command of the Sinn Féin/IRA leadership, the hunger strikers committed suicide to order. The church could not allow such sectarian domination to be hijacked and, therefore, it provided the golden cross of absolution.
Institutional sectarianism is a part of their church, but it is also practised in their politics and enunciated in every slogan. Just as, then, I had nothing whatsoever —

Mr John Kelly: Did Patsy Kelly get absolution?

Mr Oliver Gibson: The Member should confess his sins to someone else. He will have a long list.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I support the amendment in the name of Alex Attwood. I have some reservations about the motion, which addresses sectarian murder only. I would like to expand its remit to include all murder, because all murder is wrong, regardless of the circumstances in which it occurs. The words "in recent times" also cause me concern. Has a line been drawn in the sand under a time before which murder was acceptable? Murder is wrong, regardless of when it is committed or by whom.
Other Members who spoke mentioned hypocrisy, which has been plentiful. The DUP has attempted to blame the Catholic Church for everything that is wrong with society. Did the Catholic Church make the death threats that stopped Neil Lennon playing at Windsor Park? Sectarianism has been institutionalised since this state’s foundation in a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people. Robert McCartney rightly said that the Assembly was founded on sectarianism, but the institutions are seeking to change that.
Mary Nelis was right about the institutionalised sectarianism of the Orange Order. When it realised that Catholics and Presbyterians could unite under the common name of an Irishman, it did what it could to divide and conquer by admitting Presbyterians for the first time.
I have the greatest respect for Ken Robinson, but his speech disappointed me. He spoke about Twaddell Avenue, the White City area, Glenbryn and other Loyalist communities in north Belfast. Mr Attwood’s amendment mentions the protection of vulnerable communities everywhere. Mr K Robinson and I represent the East Antrim constituency, but he has not said one word about Greenisland, Carrickfergus or Larne. There have been hundreds of attacks against Catholic communities in those areas over the past few years. In the 1970s, over 400 Catholic children attended a school in Greenisland, but that school closed in 1992 with only 27 pupils. That is ethnic cleansing. We have seen —

Mr Norman Boyd: What about White City?

Mr Danny O'Connor: I do not represent that area — I am concerned about the area that I represent.

Mr Jim Wilson: Order. Members should understand that in a debate of this nature it is reasonable to expect some cut and thrust across the Chamber. However, I shall only tolerate that up to a point.

Mr Danny O'Connor: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker — my apologies to the Chair for disregarding that.
Mr Attwood’s amendment seeks to protect vulnerable communities. Some of what has been cobbled together to protect vulnerable communities actually benefits those who live in ghettos. For example, the Department for Social Development, through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, has cobbled together schemes that allow people who live on interfaces to receive £1,500 to support the security of their homes. However, minority communities living in majority areas receive nothing. I would like to see such schemes being extended to everyone to ensure that proper community support is available to all: we have a duty to promote good relations.
We must oppose sectarian displays such as those mentioned in Mr Attwood’s amendment. People begin by marking the kerbstones in their colours, be they green, white and orange or red, white and blue. Then flags go up on lamp-posts and murals appear on walls to create a chill factor for the minority living in those communities. The institutions and Departments are reluctant to intervene and remove such symbols of hatred: that must be addressed.
However, the underlying issue is sectarianism. It is a cancer in our society, and it must be rooted out if we are all to move together to a more prosperous and beneficial society.

Mr Sam Foster: After all that has been said today, sincerity may be a big word to consider. I must ask whether the Sinn Féin motion represents a road to Damascus conversion or is merely for the optics. It is difficult to comprehend the mindset of the Republican movement, particularly because it has been associated with so much terrorism over the years and still jumps to the defence of terrorists when the net is closing in on them. Is Sinn Féin involved in mere oratory; making deep noises from the chest sound like important messages from the brain? Take, for instance, the Colombia trio, Castlereagh, and the commemoration activity that occasionally occurs for those who terrorised this community over the past three decades.
Terrorism occurred all over the Province, but I refer to my own constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. When we talk about peace, I must ask if people who live along the border in my constituency had the right to live free from violence and intimidation whether they were at home, school or work. In Fermanagh alone, terrorists who were on a mission to put British citizens out of their homes, farms and businesses murdered 106 people. There was never a cheep about ethnic cleansing then — I wonder what Mrs Nelis has to say about that?
I could read a litany of deaths, but I do not have time to do so. However, can we ever forget the Enniskillen bomb of 8 November 1987? Twelve good people were murdered by the infidels whom members of Sinn Féin would pay tribute to for fighting a war, as they wrongly call it. Let us not forget that after 15 years nobody has been made accountable for the atrocity in Enniskillen. That is shameful and disgracefully hurtful to those in the town who lost their loved ones on that fateful day.
I also feel hurt personally, and I know that the wife and family of my cousin, Charles Johnston, are heartbroken at the murder near St Anne’s Cathedral in Belfast in 1981 of a dear husband and father. To this day nothing has been seen or heard of the murdering scum who, for no reason, committed that terrible act against someone who did a decent day’s work for a decent day’s pay. That family, like many others in the community, never enjoyed a long life together, because terrorism roamed the streets and byways of our country, and murdered and maimed remorselessly.
Sectarianism is still being perpetuated by the continued thrust of Republicanism despite the Belfast Agreement, which committed those who accepted it to recognise Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so long as the majority so declare through the ballot box. By hoisting the tricolour in the city hall, Alex Maskey further perpetuates sectarianism, and Alex needs to realise that there is equality and parity of esteem within the system, but not of the system. There is but one sovereignty — that of Her Majesty The Queen. There is but one sovereign flag — the Union flag. Alex should try to fulfil the agreement fully, and he should not try to claw back what he and his party have accepted, or said they accepted, in 1998 — or perhaps he is as insincere as this pretentious motion really is.
In my home town of Enniskillen, Sinn Féin, along with the SDLP, is taking down all emblems of Britishness in the town hall. That is sickening. It even extends to removing Somme and British Legion certificates, which is disgraceful. I hope that the motion is genuine, although Sinn Féin has still to convince me, because, on past and present experiences, there is no spectacle as ridiculous as Sinn Féin in one of its periodic fits of morality.
It is common knowledge that Sinn Féin, over the years, has associated itself with those who have burned our towns, doomed Northern Ireland to destruction and murdered our people. It is said that "by their fruits ye shall know them". Why does Sinn Féin not declare its intent to recognise the state of Northern Ireland, as provided for in the agreement? Regrettably, it instead continues to perpetuate division by its continued thrust against this jurisdiction, and hence sectarianism arises. Why can we not all work together peaceably so that all our citizens can enjoy better times ahead?
There are four freedoms that should apply throughout the world. The first is freedom of speech and expression. The second is freedom for everyone to worship God in their own way. The third is freedom from want, and the fourth is freedom from fear. Who wants violence? We should never think about violence or war again, no matter how necessary or justified it may seem. Some say that it is not a crime, but ask the infantry or ask the dead. Ernest Hemingway wrote:
"But in modern war there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."
All good citizens should speak for Northern Ireland and be good citizens —

Mr Jim Wilson: Order. The Member will resume his seat.

Mr Edwin Poots: This is an obnoxious motion put forward by IRA/Sinn Féin. It states that it expresses
"sympathy to all those who have been the victims of sectarian murder, violence and intimidation in recent times".
That is disgraceful. It is saying that only those who have been murdered and terrorised in recent times should receive sympathy, and should receive it from this source. Sinn Féin wants to forget the past and introduce political amnesia. It is saying that sectarianism is not all right today, but it was all right yesterday. According to Sinn Féin, sectarianism was fine before April 1998, and it was all right to terrorise and to murder up to that date. IRA/Sinn Féin would not want to condemn the La Mon House massacre or those of Bloody Friday, Teebane, Shankill, Claudy, Whitecross or Kingsmills, to name a few, because Sinn Féin was up to its eyeballs in it. There are people sitting in this Chamber who helped to organise, and who were involved to the highest level in setting off, some of those bombs, murdering people simply because they were Protestants. Here they are today, crying crocodile tears about sectarianism and terrorism, after they have terrorised the community to get what they want over the years. That has not just affected Protestants. Roman Catholics have been, and still are being, terrorised by IRA/Sinn Féin.
If people wanted to see what was in the heart of IRA/Sinn Féin today, they had only to listen to the sectarian bile pouring out of Mary Nelis as she made her sectarian speech. Sinn Féin/IRA recommends that the Police Service of Northern Ireland be treated in the same way that the RUC was treated. What happened to the RUC? More than 300 members lost their lives, and almost 10,000 were injured in attacks by the IRA and their cohorts. Sinn Féin tells us that the Police Service of Northern Ireland should be treated in the same way, and in the next breath it tells the Assembly that it is against sectarianism and violence. It is up to its eyeballs in violence right now.
I have obtained some information about how the conflict began in the Short Strand area. The Army and police moved in to make several house searches in Short Strand. Sinn Féin was concerned because weapons were being held in safe houses in that area, and immediately instigated a riot to divert the Army away from its legitimate business. That riot began the sectarian conflict at the Short Strand interface.
Sinn Féin deplores Protestants and says that the Protestant UDA is up to its eyeballs in the conflict. However, it claims that the Roman Catholic IRA has nothing to do with it. I use that term because Sinn Féin introduced the term "Protestant UDA" earlier in the debate. The facts are that of the 22 houses in that east Belfast area that have been vacated, 19 were vacated by Protestant families, and three by Roman Catholic families. All five people shot in that area were Protestant — none were Roman Catholic. Sinn Féin/IRA has been involved in that. It is responsible for starting the sectarian tension in Short Strand and for a great deal of the sectarian tension that exists.
The DUP amendment is best placed to state Northern Ireland’s position. The Assembly has not previously affirmed its commitment to non-violent and exclusively peaceful means, and therefore it is not appropriate for Members to reaffirm something that they have not already affirmed.
I encourage everyone to support the DUP motion, and to reject the crocodile tears of Sinn Féin/IRA, which is the most sectarian party in Northern Ireland and in this Chamber.

Mr Alban Maginness: This has been a disheartening and disappointing debate. The issue of sectarianism goes to the very heart of our political problem, and therefore it is perhaps not surprising that we have had such a disappointing debate. We heard from the DUP that the Catholic Church has stirred up sectarianism, and we heard from Sinn Féin that this is primarily a Unionist problem that stems from Loyalist paramilitaries. Others have cast blame on other sections of the community. The fact is that our society is structurally sectarian. That sectarianism is endemic, and if we were all honest enough we would accept that we all, to some extent, have a degree of sectarianism in our lives.
We must face up to the realities of sectarianism. We must admit that it exists, and, rather than deny it, try to address it. Bob McCartney said that the Assembly represents institutionalised sectarianism. There may be some truth in that. However, if we are to free ourselves of the problems of our society, we must learn to manage that sectarianism in order to transform our society. I hope that the Assembly and the Executive will address sectarianism in a concerted fashion so that we can change this society.
The means for tackling sectarianism are in the agreement and in our hands. We can transform this society by creating a living partnership based on friendship and justice between the two political traditions in our society.
Unfortunately, what we have at present is not true partnership. We have cold co-existence — some might even refer to it as benign apartheid. However, that is unacceptable. We have to build a partnership between both traditions to get out of the quagmire of sectarianism. Our amendment puts forward practical ways of doing that. I welcome the Sinn Féin motion, but I cannot agree with it all because it is selective: it qualifies murder, and it emphasises the recent instances of sectarianism. However, at least it is a step forward for Sinn Féin to now commit itself to non-sectarianism, because, unfortunately, its history as a party is one of extreme sectarianism. The Republican movement became an engine of extreme sectarianism in our society. That is the reality.
If we see an end to the daubing of streets, the misuse of flags, sectarian graffiti and hostile language, then we can go forward and redeem our society. Sectarianism is a disease — a pathology that affects every aspect of our society. Dr Dunlop, the former Moderator of the Presbyterian Church, said that sectarianism was a sick form of communal identification. If we realise that we have more in common with those on the other side of the sectarian divide, then we are taking a step in the right direction. Reconciliation must be the goal of the Assembly. Today, at least, may be a start in examining the problems of sectarianism —bad-tempered and negative though some of the comments have been. Perhaps we have taken a step forward.

Dr Ian Adamson: I welcome the debate as it gives us the opportunity to focus on the root causes of sectarianism in Ireland and to set in context the interface violence in my constituency, East Belfast.
On Saturday 15 June 1991 Portadown District LOL No 1 held a mini-twelfth Orange pageant in commemoration of the drowning of Protestants in the River Bann in November 1641. Portadown bridge, coupled with the contemporary massacre of 17 men, women and children in the parish of Drumcree, has come to epitomise for them all that occurred throughout Ulster in the year of the 1641 rebellion. It was at that time that the sectarian battle lines that have dogged Ulster to this day were drawn.
It is often forgotten today that towards the end of the 18th century Belfast Protestants first promoted the idea of an insular Irish nation to unite all classes and creeds, while fully supporting Catholic emancipation and attempting to revive the ancient music and literature of Ireland. However, after Daniel O’Connell’s campaign for a Catholic parliament for a Catholic people, Irish Nationalism became identified with Catholic Nationalism. By the middle of the 19th century, writers of romantic fiction had incorporated the ideal into medieval Gaelic Ireland and fostered the mythology of Gaelic patriotic racialism into a new Gaelic Nationalism.
In 1926, de Valera formed his Fianna Fáil (Warriors of Destiny) party. The Free State Party (Cumann na nGaedheal) lost power to Fianna Fáil in 1932 and changed its name to Fine Gael (Tribe of Gaels) the following year. How many of either party were Gaels in language, culture or ethnic origins is open to discussion. However, de Valera’s basic Catholic Nationalism was highlighted by a radio broadcast on St Patrick’s Day, 1935, when he said:
"Since the coming of St Patrick… Ireland has been a Christian and a Catholic nation…. She remains a Catholic nation."
According to Conor Cruise O’Brien, this statement demonstrates
"the peculiar nature of Irish nationalism, as it is actually felt, not as it is rhetorically expressed. The nation is felt to be the Gaelic nation, Catholic by religion. Protestants are welcome to join this nation. If they do, they may or may not retain their religious profession, but they become as it were, Catholic by nationality."
There has been a widespread diffusion of the Irish Nationalist mythos, which has progressed from being a political to an intellectual and finally a spiritual ideal. Genuine Loyalist and Unionist fears for their ancient British heritage, for their economic well-being, for their religious freedom and, last but not least, for their fundamental right to self-determination have been dismissed by Nationalist apologists as sectarianism.
Furthermore, the basic failure of the Northern Ireland intelligentsia to promote the Ulster identity has led to an inevitable clash between the two sections of our community. Thus, Ulster Protestants have been left to relive their past instead of using it to build up a normal national consciousness for the present. Derry has been besieged and the Battle of the Boyne fought in Belfast over and over again, with Ulster Catholics still fighting for Ireland. The complete expression of a native Ulster tradition, broader than Irish Protestantism and Catholicism and populist in sentiment, could assist our political development of a new Ulster based on co-operative democracy. That and that alone would allow the consensus in Government necessary to end at last sectarianism in Ireland.
(Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McClelland) in the Chair)

Mr Mark Durkan: Sectarianism is ugly and unacceptable in all its forms. That does not need declension, categorised definition or qualification. In this debate, and using every means at our disposal as an Assembly and at our respective disposals as parties, we should make that unambiguously clear. Sectarianism attacks the vulnerable — vulnerable communities, families, workers and children. Sectarianism does not just hurt its victims; its also corrupts its carriers. We see the corrosive effect of sectarianism in the divisions and tensions in the community. We also see sectarianism in the arrogant strut of paramilitary violence.
This debate has involved some heated exchanges. We must ensure that in our work in the Assembly we respond to the violent divisions that are apparent in our community. We will not do so through pointing the finger in blame at each other, nor by engaging in "whataboutery" in relation to different aspects of sectarianism but in making clear that we repudiate and renounce all aspects and forms of sectarianism.
It is not a matter of trying to use a debate such as this to define sectarianism as belonging predominantly in one end of the political spectrum. It is not a matter of using this debate to say how clear and pure each of us is from sectarianism and that the problem really belongs to someone else. It is not a matter of deciding in this debate or elsewhere that sectarianism is confined to those streets and areas that most graphically suffer from violent sectarianism at the hands of paramilitaries. It is not good enough for people in some areas to smugly decide "Thank God we are not like some of those interface areas in Belfast where people cannot get on."
We must recognise the scale and nature of sectarianism, and of the response needed from political leadership.
I welcome much of the content of the motion and the amendments. I will be supporting the SDLP’s amendment, as it gives the most rounded, truly balanced and clear-headed response to sectarianism. The motion and the other amendments are more pointed and partial in different aspects.
Nevertheless, I welcome these declarations that Members are opposed to sectarianism and want to stand against it. That may be new light out of old windows as far as some parties are concerned. When I hear the statements and the renunciation of sectarianism I am tempted to recall the observation of Groucho Marx that he knew Doris Day "before she was a virgin". People cannot bathe publicly in the waters of a new interest in reconciliation while continuing to shower in sectarian attitudes at other levels and on other fronts. Many of us can stoke sectarian sentiment in our own community by how we say and do things. Let all parties ask whether, in some of the things that we have done and said, we have been stoking sectarian sentiment inside our own communities.
Our words and actions can stoke sectarian resentment in other communities as well. Instead of lecturing each other, let us question ourselves and lay down markers and standards that we and our parties can adhere to.
Sectarianism manifests itself in many ways. Not least is the clutter of flags, symbols and ugly, violent graffiti that is passed off as a normal and acceptable expression of community identity and affinity. It is not. We should not allow national flags that mean a unity of different territories to one community, and a unity of different religions to another, to continue to be abused and used as visual aids to sectarianism in the way that parties in this House do.

Mr Alex Attwood: Mary Nelis has shown that she never lets the truth get in the way of her speeches. I will correct her. She said that there had been no searches or arrests in north Belfast, and that is wrong. The figures from January to May show that there were 66 searches in north Belfast — 55 in Loyalist areas and 11 in Nationalist/Republican areas. That search policy is not enough to reassure people about what is going on there, but it is also unhelpful and inaccurate to say that there were no searches and no arrests in north Belfast when the evidence — whatever that may be — flatly contradicts that. The sooner we start to tell the truth, rather than a collection of lies to sell some party-political approach, the better it will be for us all.
It is a similar story with Gerry Kelly, although he made a speech that was markedly dissimilar to that of Mary Nelis. Sinn Féin must reconcile itself to its opposition to "violence and intimidation" as stated in its motion. Even the best speeches will ring hollow until it can reconcile its warm words with what is actually happening in parts of the North, where Republicans are involved in the intimidation of PSNI trainees and of future SDLP and civilian members of district policing partnerships; and until it can demonstrably confirm that it is opposed to that intimidation.
Several others suggested that people should simply support the police. That has not been, and is not now, the approach of the SDLP, even now that it is represented on the Policing Board. The rigorous and correct approach is to acknowledge the police when they get things right, and to criticise and challenge them when they get it wrong. If Unionism in particular would take that perspective in this debate, we might be better informed and better placed to deal with policing and sectarianism.
How does this debate end? It ends with Sinn Féin condemning sectarianism and blaming the Protestant community for it. The DUP condemned sectarianism and blamed the Catholic Church for it. The UUP condemned sectarianism and listed constituencies under threat — all of them were Unionist. As Mark Durkan eloquently pointed out, sectarianism infects all sections of society. Each side is guilty of it, and each side has suffered from it. Combating sectarianism has to begin with an acceptance that none of us, inside or outside the Chamber, can afford to adopt a high moral tone on sectarianism. All of us, to a greater or lesser extent, have contributed to the position that we are now in, and we must all contribute to its undoing.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have listened to much of today’s debate — some of it was good, some bad and parts of it downright bad. I was interested to hear Mark Durkan’s condemnation of paramilitaries. What a pity that he was not as forthright when the Belfast Agreement was signed. It would never have been signed if it had not been propped up by the paramilitaries who are being castigated today for their sectarianism.
Of all that we have heard, however, I suspect that the rant by Mary Nelis will take some beating. I think that she lives in cloud cuckoo land, because she certainly does not live on this planet. Some of the stuff that she comes out with beggars belief. I wonder at times where she is. She belongs to a party that is inextricably linked to the most ruthless killing machine in the whole of the Western world. For 30years, it has carried out a naked sectarian terrorist campaign in this country. It waged war along the border and drove the Protestants from it. It waged war at La Mon, in Enniskillen, Teebane, Darkley and Warrenpoint; on Bloody Friday, in Omagh, at the Droppin’ Well, on the Shankill, and on police stations, including Newry RUC station; with human bombs, ethnic cleansing, and against civilians working in Army bases.
Yet they sit here today, and some of them would make a powerful stand-in for Worzel Gummidge. They have a pious look on their faces, yet they are at the cutting edge of naked sectarianism that has been waged in this country for 30years. This debate has been brought about as a result of their hypocrisy. Members on the Benches opposite them realise that they are looking into the face of sectarianism in its most ruthless form. [Interruption]. I can understand why you would not look in the mirror.
Jane Morrice also mentioned the clergy. Will she cast her mind back a few weeks to an incident in Randalstown when a minister led his congregation with the news of the Gospel? How was he treated? He was treated in a most ruthless, sectarian manner; the congregation was taken apart and its instruments smashed into tiny pieces. That was done in the name of Republicanism. What support did he get from those who tell us that, in this ecumenical age, we are all together? One minister phoned him and apologised. Where were the hundreds and thousands of others? What were they doing? I suspect that by their silence they were giving consent to what happened.
The DUP’s amendment contains what is missing in most of the others. Mr Attwood from west Belfast is a member of the Policing Board. I am amazed that he cannot bring himself to state publicly that Members should throw their lot behind the agencies of law and order. He has not said that because it would not be politically expedient for him to do so, and, on occasion, the SDLP want somehow to out-Sinn Féin Sinn Féin. Instead of drawing a definitive line between the two and saying that the SDLP is different, what does it do? It sidles up to Sinn Féin and gives it succour and support when it should be treated as the cast-out of society. Remember what Sinn Féin has been involved in over the years, yet its representatives come to the Chamber as if they were statesmen, as if the past 30 years never happened and was all just a bad dream.
I urge Members, before they cast their votes, to consider what the DUP is trying to achieve. The Assembly has been sectarianised because there has to be a sectarian headcount for every important vote — sectarianism has, in fact, been institutionalised.

Dr Esmond Birnie: The SDLP amendment corrects at least some of the flaws in the Sinn Féin motion; the DUP amendment correctly notes that ceasefires have been breached; and in the UUP amendment the word "re-affirms" could be replaced by "affirms". With regard to the motion, it is not for the Assembly to affirm its commitment to non-violence — that is for the IRA and Loyalist paramilitaries to do. It is Sinn Féin, not the Assembly, that must demonstrate that it truly believes that all sections of the community have the right to live free from violence by encouraging IRA inactivity.
The Assembly does not need to express its sympathy to victims of violence by means of this orchestrated, manipulative and insincere motion. It is the IRA by its terrorism, and Sinn Féin by its continued hypocrisy, who have proven themselves to be institutionally sectarian. To support the motion would be to mock the victims of the troubles since 1969.
The wording of the motion bears striking similarities to the so-called "apology" from the IRA of a few months ago. There is no mention of the security force members who were killed by the IRA and whose deaths were not at that time, or this afternoon, condemned by Sinn Féin. That is one of the most disturbing features of the motion.
With regard to the PSNI, the Sinn Féin president said:
"I think they will be accorded exactly the same treatment the republican movement accorded to the RUC. No more, no less."
His words stand testimony to the residual sectarian element in Sinn Féin.
I support amendment No 1.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I call Mr Maskey to respond and to conclude the debate.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. First, I want to return to the motion in my name and in Gerry Kelly’s, to make the point that it is in the spirit of sub-priority 2 of section 2.4, entitled ‘Growing as a Community’, in the Programme for Government. The motion was deliberately designed to allow Members to give support and encouragement to the public, to offer some way out of the sectarianism that we face and to help to bring an end to the discrimination, death and destruction which afflict many communities in the North. Therefore, the motion, by its very nature, is not prescriptive or partial, and it is open-ended.
Sinn Féin rejects and opposes all forms of sectarianism — be it murder or whatever — for ever and a day. We oppose sectarianism totally, and we will stand accountable, like any other political party, to the public on that stance. I remind the public that all parties present had the opportunity to propose a motion this week, or at any other time, but none of them saw fit to do that. People can draw their own conclusions from that.
The Sinn Féin motion is designed to have a debate about sectarianism. Although listeners to the debate may find it hard to detect, sectarianism is a problem that transcends Republicanism, policing, and it transcends any one section of our community.
I commend the Deputy First Minister for his contribution, and for his acknowledgement of the issue and of the fact that sectarianism is all-pervasive. It is regrettable that the First Minister and other Members of the Executive have not contributed this afternoon. No one here can say that they have no responsibility or that they have all the answers. We need an inclusive, rational debate on sectarianism in which Members can put their analysis and solutions on the table. Regrettably, I have heard very few solutions this afternoon. All our constituents want answers and solutions. They do not want the finger-pointing which, for the most part, is simply an excuse for those who make those allegations and arguments to do nothing.
It is also clear that there is a need for a forum for all sections of society to participate in and to shape a campaign that will tackle sectarianism in all its forms. If the motion is passed today — and even if it is not passed — it shows that the Assembly can provide that forum. Sinn Féin has an analysis of what may or may not constitute sectarianism. The substance of the amendments today is simply that if Sinn Féin were to support the PSNI, our problems would no longer exist. That is not the simple answer. Unfortunately, if you believe Alan McQuillan’s comments last week — and you do not have to — the bulk of the violence came from Loyalists. That community very strongly supports the police and all their policing structures.
In recent months, the SDLP has not stopped running to the NIO, delegation after delegation, to complain that the PSNI is a part of the problem in so far as it is not giving protection to vulnerable communities. Regrettably, policing is still part of the problem, and that is why we did not include it in our motion. However, we stand ready to debate all forms of sectarianism and all solutions to tackle it, because the people that we all represent deserve and want much better.
Today very few Members made any specific proposals, other than some generalised suggestions such as telephone link-ups, which are being dealt with at implementation group level. Sinn Féin made some of those suggestions during discussions. Many Members spent their time criticising Sinn Féin, and none of them have accepted that they are responsible for any of the attitudes, policies or actions that ferment sectarianism in society. If you are listening to this debate or you were listening to a radio programme at lunchtime, you would be forgiven for thinking, four years after the establishment of the Assembly, "is this the best that they can do?"
We should be debating the strategy that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister was supposed to introduce this year. That strategy ought to lead to a cross-departmental plan to tackle sectarianism and offer solutions to our communities.
It is now September 2002. We are a long way behind schedule in our attempts to deal with one of the biggest scourges of our society — sectarianism — and the death and destruction that it has caused in the streets. Although I commend the Deputy First Minister’s contribution, we should be debating a fully thought-out, advanced strategy for solving the problems.
I want to be positive. Despite the negativity that was displayed today, Belfast City Council carried out good work in July when the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister was on holiday. The political leaders and the Departments were not available to tackle the many difficulties that faced communities. I spoke to Loyalist residents in east Belfast, the NIO, the Housing Executive and many other organisations about repairing houses and reinstating tenants. No senior officials were available from any Department.
Despite Belfast City Council’s history, local councillors were able to meet in July and organise a rally with the trade union movement, the Churches and the private sector. They agreed to form a working group on sectarianism, which will meet for the first time later this month. Despite what some politicians said today, their party colleagues on Belfast City Council have been working together. They organised a programme of work and sought nominations to the working group. That sends out an encouraging and positive message. Despite difficulties, various analyses and differences of opinion about the origins of the conflict and the causes and definition of sectarianism, councillors did come together. That contrasts with today’s debate. I hope that Belfast City Council will be able to demonstrate to the people of Belfast — perhaps for the first time and belatedly — that it is starting to agree on steps to tackle sectarianism.
We will all stand in the spotlight, all stand accused. Today I heard lily-white, halo-laden people deny that they had anything to do with sectarianism and say that it was not their problem. As Mark Durkan and other Members said, sectarianism is all-pervasive and has existed for a long time.
Despite all the nonsense that has been spewed out this afternoon, let us agree that there is a period of relative calm in some areas in Belfast. That is because many people have worked hard behind the scenes to bring a lull to those areas and achieve peace and respect in both the Unionist and Nationalist communities. Those communities deserve better from their political leadership.
If I was not a politician, and I listened to some of the contributions, I would advocate closing the Assembly, because if that is the best that Members can offer, they should not be here. I am delighted that the parties whose Members are here and have offered nothing but negativity and criticism are given much better and more mature leadership in local councils. Sinn Féin rejects the amendments, because they are not a total solution.

Mr Maurice Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Having listened to what Dr Birnie said about his amendment, I propose to withdraw the DUP’s amendment. My party will support the UUP’s amendment.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That may only be done by leave of the House. It will not be possible to withdraw the amendment if there are dissenting voices. Do I have the leave of the House?

Members: No.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Given that there are dissenting voices, the amendment must be put to the vote.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During yesterday’s debate on firefighters’ pay, several amendments were withdrawn without taking a collection of voices in the House.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I will look at Hansard, but I understand that it was stated. To be fair, Mr Kennedy, by now we should all know the rule that amendments may only be withdrawn by leave of the House.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If our amendment is not moved, you cannot do anything. It must be moved.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I understand that it has been moved; you may only withdraw it. However, I will take advice on that.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I led the debate on our amendment. I did not say that I was moving it. I thought that you would ask us in the usual way if we were moving our amendment.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Dr Paisley, I have taken advice, and in all cases we will have to check Hansard. However, I am advised at the Table that the amendment was moved, so it may only be withdrawn by leave of the House.
Question put, 
The Assembly divided:
Ayes
Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Reg Empey, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson.
Noes
Gerry Adams, Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Michael Coyle, Bairbre de Brún, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers.
Amendment No 1 accordingly agreed to.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I will now put amendment No 2 standing on the Marshalled List. All those in favour say "aye"; contrary, if any, "no".
No Members responded to either question
[Laughter]

Mr Donovan McClelland: They do not pay me enough for this. The amendment falls.
Amendment No 2 negatived.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved:
In its belief that all sections of our community have the right to exist and all people have the right to live free from violence and intimidation whether at home, at school, or the workplace, this Assembly expresses its sympathy to all those who have been the victims of terrorist murder, violence and intimidation, rejects Republican and Loyalist sectarianism and commits itself to providing leadership on this issue in practical ways. This Assembly re-affirms its commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means and calls upon all parties to actively support and co-operate with the Police Service of Northern Ireland in securing evidence against those involved in violence and in default of their ceasefires.

Dr Joe Hendron: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. What happened to amendment No 3?

Mr Donovan McClelland: It was clearly announced in the Chamber at 2.00 pm that if either amendment No 1 or No 2 was made, then amendment No 3 would not be put.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker]

Condition of A-Class Roads in West Tyrone

Mr Joe Byrne: Before the Assembly rose for summer recess, the Minister for Regional Development presented his Department’s 10-year regional transportation strategy (RTS) to the Assembly. I participated in that debate, broadly welcoming the RTS and its many positive aspects, which, if implemented, would improve the transportation infrastructure of Northern Ireland. However, there was insufficient time to address aspects of the RTS relating to the West Tyrone constituency, in particular the upgrading and maintenance of A-class roads.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
It is not the purpose of the debate to castigate Roads Service, which has had to make do with limited resources and has completed several worthwhile schemes in the Omagh District Council and Strabane District Council areas designed to calm and relieve traffic congestion. The intention is to discuss flaws in the RTS in relation to West Tyrone’s A-class roads, and to contribute to the wider debate on the future of the transportation infrastructure in that part of Northern Ireland.
The issue is important because it raises questions about the Department’s commitment to social justice and equality in border constituencies such as West Tyrone, and to balanced sustainable development across Northern Ireland. It also raises issues about the Department’s commitment to working with the National Roads Authority in the Irish Republic and the need to achieve a truly integrated transportation network on the island. Therefore, despite its many positive aspects, there have been serious omissions from the RTS, particularly in relation to A-class roads, an issue of concern to many in West Tyrone.
Geographically, West Tyrone is the largest of the constituencies, with a population of over 140,000. In terms of transportation infrastructure, the constituency is totally dependent on roads due the non-existence of a rail network. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the condition of roads to the social and economic life of the constituents. West Tyrone is served by the A5, the main arterial route and a designated trans-European network (TEN) route that runs between Ballygawley and Derry and passes through the towns of Omagh, Newtownstewart and Strabane. It also has two further A-class roads; the A32 connecting Omagh to Enniskillen, and the A505 that runs between Omagh and Cookstown.
I welcome the importance attached by the RTS to such TEN routes as the A5, which are essential to European integration, economic prosperity and generating employment. The TEN routes have an important role in ensuring the free movement in the European Union of goods, services and people, which reinforces social and economic cohesion.
I welcome the work currently being carried out on the A5. That includes stage 2 of the Strabane bypass, the Newtownstewart bypass and stage 3 of the Omagh throughpass, which has fallen in the list of priorities since the Chancellor’s 1998 initiative and awaits the completion of the remaining statutory procedures before construction can begin.
I am, however, disappointed that the A5 TEN route, although one of the five designated key transport corridors in the RTS, may not get the capital investment necessary to upgrade it to dual carriageway standard. West Tyrone has not a single mile of dual carriageway or motorway. The RTS proposes to widen the A5 only at selected points. Those are merely gestures, and the road between Omagh and Ballygawley remains treacherous. The recognition of the A5 as a key transport corridor in the RTS will remain an illusion if the necessary capital investment is not made to upgrade it.
Currently the A5 is a 7·3-metre-wide single carriageway, and it is inadequate for the volume of traffic it carries. Furthermore, it makes a mockery of the RTS objective of decreasing public transport journey times. That is unacceptable, given the importance of the route to West Tyrone’s local economy and the need to facilitate cross-border trade via the N2 in the South. In the common chapter of the Northern Ireland structural funds plan and the Republic’s National Development Plan 2000-06, the co-ordination of transport planning and construction is a key area for co-operation. If we are to develop a socially-inclusive economy in Northern Ireland, we must invest in transportation infrastructure which is safe, accessible and integrated on an all-island basis.
Madam Deputy Speaker — I am sorry if I earlier called you Mr Deputy Speaker — in the RTS there is no reference to the A505 and the A32 roads in West Tyrone, and I draw the attention of the House to that. The condition of both roads is unacceptable, since they are the main routes between three major towns. That the RTS contains no proposals for upgrading those routes is a glaring omission. The A32 between Omagh and Enniskillen is frequently used by ambulances, often in emergencies, to take patients to the Erne Hospital’s maternity unit. The A505 between Omagh and Cookstown is used by road haulage traffic travelling to the port of Larne.
I do acknowledge the great improvement to the A32 at Dromore with the new inner ring road which was completed last year.
Ignoring those roads is contrary to the principles of balanced regional development across Northern Ireland and the stated objective of the regional development strategy, the RTS’s mother document, to achieve a modern, sustainable, safe transportation system which benefits society, the economy and the environment and which actively contributes to social inclusion and to everyone’s quality of life.
It is essential that these routes be upgraded, for safety reasons as well as for economic ones. The RTS highlights the fact that Northern Ireland has the highest number of road deaths — more than in any other region of the UK. Both the A505 and the A32 are hazardous in many areas. Their narrowness effectively reduces the maximum speed to around 40 mph. Many road traffic accidents in rural areas can be attributed to that narrowness, and many people have lost their lives unnecessarily or have been injured.
That brings me to the matter of the maintenance backlog of West Tyrone’s A-class roads, which received only 9% of the Department for Regional Development’s spending on road maintenance during 2001-02. The RTS recognises that it is essential that the roads network receive substantial investment to upgrade key routes and to deal with the massive maintenance backlog, which is particularly acute in rural areas. For example, in the Omagh and Strabane districts the most recent figures, from a survey carried out in 2001, reveal that the maintenance backlog on A-class roads totals almost £8·5 million.
It is totally unacceptable that the amount required to address the maintenance backlog is more than twice the total funding of £4·126 million that has been allocated to major capital works, minor capital works and road maintenance during the same period in those district council areas. That situation cannot continue, and I ask the Minister to take the necessary action to clear up the road maintenance backlog in the Omagh and Strabane District Council areas.
Successful regional transportation strategies are based on a close relationship between the improvement of transportation infrastructure and economic development. The provision of an accessible transportation infrastructure is a key factor in attracting new inward investment, the siting of new industry and the survival of indigenous firms. Transport costs have a major effect on the profitability of many businesses, especially the food and textile industries, in west Tyrone. Therefore, the uneven development of Northern Ireland’s transportation infrastructure increases the economic disadvantages experienced by peripheral border areas.
For many years, my party has expressed its grave concerns about the lack of a co-ordinated and balanced approach to the development of the region’s road infrastructure. Unfortunately, those of us who live in rural areas have tolerated inadequate roads for many decades. The historic underinvestment in west Tyrone’s road network continues to have a detrimental effect on the area’s ability to generate further economic growth and employment.
In 1964, Northern Ireland’s Minister of Home Affairs stated that the continuation of the motorway to Derry, and the upgrading of the routes from Omagh to Enniskillen and Omagh to Derry, would be a priority. Of course, aside from piecemeal improvements, that did not happen. Now that we once again have locally elected Ministers and the opportunity to, as the Programme for Government states, "make a difference", it would be a tragedy were we to repeat the mistakes of the past.
The need in my constituency does not stop at road maintenance. West Tyrone needs a transport system, albeit road-based, that is capable of supporting social and economic development.

Mr Derek Hussey: Thank you, Deputy Speaker — to avoid Mr Byrne’s problem, I left out the terms "Madam" or "Mr".
Although I support Mr Byrne’s comments, I am mindful of the investment that we have seen in west Tyrone, and I thank the Minister for it. We are also aware of proposed future investment. The main tenet of Mr Byrne’s Adjournment debate is that, although we welcome that investment, we realise that the bulk of the capital will, necessarily, be spent on one route. I thank Mr Byrne for joining me in highlighting that, as the Minister knows, the A5 should be a dual carriageway. The Minister is well aware of my views on that route, and I appeal to him that, when roadworks are undertaken on the A5, he should consider allowing land purchase to facilitate its dualling when funds become available.
Yesterday, the Minister stated that he is often hindered by the 30 years of democratic and financial deficit that we were plagued with in Northern Ireland. Members appreciate that and the efforts that are being made to overcome it. It is, however, a great pity that Members from Fermanagh and South Tyrone and from Mid Ulster did not stay to hear the debate, because Mr Byrne mentioned factors that will assist their constituencies when we deal with the Omagh to Enniskillen route and the Omagh to Cookstown route. I congratulate Mr Byrne on bringing those routes to the House’s attention.
I am a little disappointed that the debate has been limited to a discussion of A-class roads. There are so few of them in West Tyrone, and many of our people use the B-class and C-class routes.
Mr Byrne referred to the maintenance backlog: it is a disgrace to see the state of some of our B-class and C-class roads. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the backlog, and I urge him to listen to what Mr Byrne has said and to hear the pleas of the officials in the western division of the Roads Service. That division is pleading for the tools to do the job. That is the main tenet of the motion, and I support it.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I support my Colleagues in bringing pressure to bear on the Department for Regional Development to seriously consider the A5, particularly as it has been designated a trans-European route. I am grateful that the other representatives of West Tyrone have already highlighted the desperate condition of the B-class and C-class roads.
We must bear in mind that the constituency covers a large area: it is over 65 miles long and 49 miles wide. Despite that it has only 55 miles of A-class roads. The other 1,500 miles of road, which represent 95% of the total, are B-class and C-class. In a fortnight, councillors from Strabane and Omagh are joining me to meet the Minister for Regional Development to discuss those roads. This has been a burning issue for many years.
I should like to congratulate the Minister, because for the first time in 30 years the infrastructural deficit and backlog that we suffer in west Tyrone have been recognised. The complaints that I receive in the constituency office refer to the miles of pipe laying that is taking place for the new water mains that are being laid all over the countryside. Many delays are being experienced on the A5 because major road schemes are under construction.
We should recognise that improvements at Magheramason, Bready, Burndennet Bridge, Ballykeel, the Newtownstewart bypass, and the Garvaghy crossroads, as well as the expected Omagh throughpass, are the result of a major infrastructural input. I thank the Minister, because until two and a half years ago, we in Omagh and Strabane lobbied vigorously, but unsuccessfully, for funds. Therefore I recognise that our present Minister is the first to have seriously attacked the infrastructural backlog.
I should also like to thank the Minister and his Department for recognising that the backlog existed and for skewing funds westward. Approximately £850 million will be available over 10 years. However, a significant amount of the money has already been earmarked for many of the major projects I just mentioned.
We must seriously consider improving the A5, because it was designed 40 years ago when the maximum number of axles allowed for a lorry was two and the maximum weight was 18 tons. Nowadays, we struggle to overtake six-axled lorries with 40-ton road weight. At that time, roads were built and engineered to a totally different specification than that required today. Therefore the Minister and his Department face a dilemma as to how to utilise the existing infrastructure. Is a trans-European route to be considered because it is not as costly as a dual carriageway? Throughout the world, the broad four-lane road with two inside crawler lanes used for slower traffic — an old concept — has done away with the massive amount of kerbing. Instead, the reliance is on white lining, directional lines and road signage for road safety. In countries where four-lane roads have been constructed they have proved safe and successful and have increased traffic through-flow by approximately 28%. That is something the Minister and his Department might consider. A four-lane road from Dungannon, with a branch to Enniskillen, to the Maiden City would have to be costed, but would prove to be more cost-effective. The design of the present A5 from Ballygawley to the Maiden City means that about 250 projects would have to be undertaken to improve safety. It would be single carriage each way, which would limit the traffic flow, as it can only proceed at the speed of the slowest vehicle.
It will benefit everyone if we recognise that there is a backlog and that it will take a fair amount of finance to resolve the problem of overworn, dilapidated road systems that we have inherited. The Department has struggled over the past 30 years to maintain those roads, but now the B- and C-class roads are punishing our transport systems. I have been lobbied continuously by the Western Education and Library Board. It is having to change the routes its buses take because it will no longer permit its new fleet to travel some of those B-class roads and all of the C-class roads. The condition of those roads is too sore on the bus system. The private transport sector, which is becoming more involved in the transport of children, has also complained about those roads. My recommendation emanates from those two sources. The construction of a four-lane road, all the way from Dungannon, with one branch to Enniskillen, right through to the Maiden City would cut out many of the major schemes still outstanding. Serious consideration should be given to the suggestion. I thank Joe Byrne for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter.
The deficit was created by 30 years of mayhem and destruction.
We had to replace and compensate; now we are playing catch-up. I am delighted to say that the Minister has made an honourable attempt to give some shape to the future of roads in the west.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the debate. I disagree that the problems are attributable to the past 30 years. It is more a matter of 80 years of institutional neglect of that part of County Tyrone, dating back to before the 1920s.
This is a useful opportunity to articulate the urgency of improving and upgrading class-A roads in County Tyrone, particularly in the western division area of the Roads Service. County Tyrone’s legacy of underinvestment and the deliberate policy of discrimination practised there have only accentuated its sub-regional peripherality in the North, Ireland as a whole, and Europe. Since the demise of the railways in the 1960s, roads are the sole mode of transportation. This situation places people in the greater north-west at a distinct disadvantage — the debate is more about people than it is about roads. The situation requires commitment from Departments, and from the Department for Regional Development in particular. I acknowledge that the Department has been getting to grips with the road situation in west Tyrone recently. Schemes such as that in Dromore are very positive. Good projects have been carried out, and several are in the pipeline, such as the A32 realignment scheme.
The Minister for Regional Development should look beyond the Assembly for roads funding for the greater north-west, to the European Union, and the Government in the South. He should seek a peace dividend to address our infrastructural deficit. The A5 is a priority requiring major funding to realign the road to accommodate its high usage. It has been identified as part of a major trans-European route that links, for example, citizens in Omagh to Belfast via the A4 and M1, and citizens in Donegal and Derry to Dublin via the A5 and N2. The road carries a great deal of cross-border traffic. I remind the Minister of a question that I asked some months ago, to which he replied. I asked how many miles of dual carriageway there were in County Tyrone.
Funding is required from the Assembly and other political institutions, although I appreciate the financial constraints on the Department. A more holistic approach is needed for the upgrading of the A32, which is the main road from Enniskillen to Omagh, or Omagh to Enniskillen, if someone were so inclined. I appreciate that positive steps have been taken with regard to the Dromore bypass and several realignment schemes. I urge the Minister to dig the channels and make provision for a dual carriageway in the immediate to mid-term future.
The A505 from Omagh to Cookstown is an important route linking the county town of Tyrone with another principal town in Tyrone, and beyond to the M2. The A505 also requires major realignment, not least at an important point known locally as the Seven Sisters.
The cake needs to be made larger in general. I urge the Minister to listen to the combined voices of the councils and the representatives of the people in those areas affected, including Donegal, Omagh, Strabane, Cookstown, Dungannon and Fermanagh.
I wish to make the political point that the Minister should take his seat at the Executive table, because his absence when funds are being distributed is to the detriment of the citizens of west Tyrone.

Mr Peter Robinson: At the outset I find myself agreeing with many of the points that Members have made, particularly their calls for improvement to the strategic highways in west Tyrone, just as I would for other parts of Northern Ireland.
There can be no doubt that a modern and effective transport system is the lifeblood of any modern society. For that reason I developed my regional transportation strategy, 2002-2012, covering transportation strategy for the next decade. It proposes significant improvements to our roads, buses, light rail and railway infrastructure, and I was delighted when in July 2002 the House unanimously approved the strategic direction of its underlying principles. I stress "unanimously" because, as we have seen today, it is not always that our decisions in the House are unanimous. The strategy identifies the transportation priorities and the investment needed to provide
"a modern, sustainable and safe transportation system over the next 10 years"
— your words, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you endorsed them along with the rest of the House when we passed the regional development strategy for Northern Ireland 2002-2012, the mother of the regional transportation strategy. Such a programme will require significantly enhanced investment, yet the strategy is pitched at a level that can be realistically achieved.
However, I do not wish to leave the impression that west Tyrone has, in any way, been neglected for funding for major road schemes in recent years, and I will review some of my Department’s recent achievements in that area. In the last two years we have seen the completion of the £2·1 million scheme to provide overtaking opportunities on the A5 at Leckpatrick; the provision of the A32 Dromore inner link at a cost of almost £1 million; the £800,000 bridge replacement and realignment scheme at Burndennett; and, of course, the £500,000 widening scheme to provide overtaking opportunities on the A5 at Tattykeel, south of Omagh, which has recently been completed.
I also have to say that west Tyrone is faring reasonably well in major road schemes currently under construction, as was shown by the appreciative remarks of some Members. We are at stage 2 of the Strabane bypass, which will provide 2·6 kilometres of single carriageway, at a cost of £4·2 million, to bypass one of the most congested stretches of the A5. There is also the £8 million Newtownstewart bypass, which will provide just under three kilometres of new carriageway. In addition, stage 3 of the Omagh throughpass, which will complete the throughpass of Omagh at a cost of some £5 million, is going through the statutory procedures.
Regarding trunk roads in west Tyrone I am pleased to be able to make three important announcements today. First, I can tell the House that I expect the Newtownstewart bypass to be completed in November 2002, some four months ahead of schedule. This will be a welcome early boost to motorists on the Omagh to Londonderry road, eliminating the considerable delays to traffic currently experienced at that point.
Secondly, I am pleased to advise that all objections to the direction order for stage 3 of the Omagh throughpass have been withdrawn as a result of the Roads Service’s negotiations with the objectors. This clears the way for us to proceed with land acquisition and brings us a crucial step nearer to starting this important scheme.
Thirdly, I can announce that in the next financial year the Roads Service proposes to construct a further overtaking opportunity on the A5 by widening the section from Ballygawley roundabout, heading north, to three lanes for a distance of approximately 1·3 kilometres. That will again provide better opportunities for overtaking. That proposal will be assisted by the recently announced investment in road maintenance from the reinvestment and reform initiative.
Despite the number of schemes recently finished or in progress in west Tyrone, I assure the House that major work schemes are chosen on an impartial and objective basis with the aim of benefiting Northern Ireland as a whole.
Although a major road scheme on a strategic route may be located in one county or one district council area, the scheme’s purpose is to improve access to locations along the entire route. Mr Hussey made that point to some extent when he stated that he wished that Members from Mid Ulster and Fermanagh and South Tyrone had attended the debate. He recognised that what happens in west Tyrone can affect adjoining constituencies. Equally, what happens in adjoining constituencies can be to the benefit of west Tyrone. There is a recognition that the purpose of the scheme is also to improve access to other locations. For example, the £2·2 million scheme to improve the A4 at Eglish and Cabragh on the main Belfast to Omagh road will also benefit West Tyrone. For this reason it is sometimes misleading to compare spending on major road schemes on a constituency or district basis.
I advise the Member for West Tyrone, Mr Byrne, who is happily smiling at present, not to refer to "only" 9% of the maintenance budget’s being spent in West Tyrone when any of his Colleagues from other constituencies are around. If he multiplies 9% by the 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland, he will see that West Tyrone is probably receiving over 50% more than the average would permit. The figure is based on the principle that is adopted fairly by my Department: money goes where the need is. I hope that the Member will recognise that the 9% he mentioned in somewhat derisory terms is recognition that even though West Tyrone contains approximately 5·4% of the total population —

Mr Joe Byrne: Will the Member give way?

Mr Peter Robinson: I will, though I know what Mr Byrne is going to say. I will let him have the opportunity to put it on record. Although West Tyrone contains only 5·4% of the total population, it is getting about 50% more than that for spending on maintenance.

Mr Joe Byrne: The Minister will accept — and other Members have made reference to this — that West Tyrone is the biggest constituency geographically.

Mr Peter Robinson: That is one of several factors. If we want to add a few more to the debate, one of the key issues that my Department must consider is the amount of use on any road. That was one of the factors that militated against the west of the Bann generally. It was one of the key reasons for not simply extrapolating over the next 10 years the amount of money that we would put into our regional transport strategy and for determining, even from the draft, that I would have to lift that up. Only by lifting that bar considerably higher was it going to have the spread right across the Province that West Tyrone and the other constituencies west of the Bann deserved.
In addition to the major road schemes over the past few years, the Roads Service has invested a similar amount on minor road improvement schemes across Northern Ireland. The resources available for minor capital schemes are allocated to the four Roads Service divisions and, in turn, apportioned across district council areas on a needs-based priority approach using indicators such as population, weighted road lengths and the number of accidents. As far as possible, that ensures an equitable distribution of funds across the country, and I am satisfied that West Tyrone has received an equitable share of those resources.
Mr Hussey spoke of the feeling among western division staff that if they were given the tools, they could do the job.
I have no doubt that the confidence would be well placed in my colleagues in the western division. Equally, there would be those in the Department for Regional Development who would ask the Assembly for the tools to do the job. We are willing to do all the work required across the Province, but we need the resources to do that. If the Assembly gives unanimous approval to the regional transportation strategy and backs it up with the necessary financial support, the western division will show that it, and the other divisions, will do the job if they are given the tools.
The improvements to the A32 at Lettergesh were completed in May this year at a cost of over a quarter of a million pounds. In addition, the result of the reform and reinvestment initiative bids announced before the holidays in July will give an additional £20 million over the next two years for structural maintenance improvements on the regional strategic transportation network. The Roads Service has already programmed schemes for west Tyrone using those additional resources. They include improvements to the A32 at Clanabogan near Omagh — I hope that I pronounced that correctly for the hon Gentleman — starting in October 2002 and costing £220,000; improvements to the A32 at Lisdoo between Dromore and Irvinestown starting in November 2002 and costing £495,000; and improvements to the A5 at Melmount Road, Strabane starting next year and costing £220,000.
Mr Byrne argued that the regional transportation strategy should have proposed a dual carriageway for the A5, or parts of it, rather than bypasses and overtaking opportunity schemes. Any investment must make economic sense, and the significant capital cost of a dual carriageway must be offset by time savings and other benefits for the traffic-using public. Experience shows that on inter-urban roads the minimum traffic volume that normally justifies the provision of a dual carriageway is about 11,000 vehicles a day. The typical traffic on the inter-urban sections of the A5 is just over 9,000 vehicles a day, and at times that stretches to 11,000 vehicles a day. That barely reaches the minimum threshold where the provision of a dual carriageway could be economically justified.

Mr Derek Hussey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Peter Robinson: The Member may want to hear my next sentence. The schemes shown in the regional transportation strategy were for illustrative purposes and to give some idea of what might be delivered by the additional £375 million envisaged for strategic highway improvements across Northern Ireland in the 10-year period. The illustrative map shows several improvements relevant to County Tyrone on top of the schemes already in the programme. Therefore the Member cannot say that there would not be a change to the illustrative case if he had an argument that convinced the Roads Service.

Mr Derek Hussey: I thank the Minister for giving way. I understand the objective figures he is working with. However, as my Colleagues and I travel to and from Belfast from the western area we are aware of the subjective nature of the traffic encountered. We are dealing with rural and slow-moving traffic, and an economy that is totally dependent on roads. Mr Gibson pointed out that a considerable number of large commercial vehicles use that road and slow down the travel time.

Mr Peter Robinson: I have given the Member an opportunity to make his point. My officials, who will ultimately make recommendations to me on these matters, have heard the case. Mr Hussey does not have an argument with me, or my Department, about the need for road improvements. If I had not put the illustrative map into the regional transportation strategy, many Members would be asking whether that meant that schemes would go ahead in their areas. We have tried to give some indication of what can be done were £375 million to become available in the way that we have outlined.
I also pointed out that the illustrative map showed several improvements for County Tyrone as a whole, on top of the schemes that are already in the programme, such as selective widening. That scheme will provide further overtaking opportunities on several stretches of the A5, as well as the dualling of the Dungannon to Ballygawley road.
The schemes to be delivered under the regional transportation strategy have yet to be finalised, and will be progressed through three transport plans. Of those, two are relevant to west Tyrone. The regional strategic transport network plan will determine a programme of initiatives that includes strategic highway schemes, and the sub-regional transport plan will do the same for the non-trunk network. The third plan covers the Belfast metropolitan area.
I can assure Members that, in preparing the regional strategic transport network plan, my officials will consult the Committee for Regional Development and elected representatives, and will screen all single carriageway roads on the trunk network to identify those that would benefit most from dualling.
It is only fair to make it clear that the funding for road schemes, or any other element of the regional transportation strategy, is not unlimited. I have already proposed significant increased investment over the 10-year period of an additional £1·37 billion. If it is determined on the basis of analysis and other considerations that any particular route should be improved over and above the illustrative proposals in the regional transportation strategy, it stands to reason that other schemes in the illustrative proposal would have to be withdrawn, or additional funds would have to be found. That is the difficult balance that my officials and I will have to strike.
The single most critical factor in delivering the regional transportation strategy, whether it is for strategic highway improvements, or for better bus services or railways, will be the availability of the significantly increased levels of investment. Therefore I welcome Members’ support for the strategy, and for individual schemes. I hope that that strong support across the House will result in my Department’s being allocated the necessary funding increase in future Budget rounds, whether from normal public expenditure, the reinvestment and reform initiative, or the underwriting of payments related to public-private partnerships. I trust that the investments that I have mentioned for the road network in west Tyrone illustrate my Department’s ongoing commitment to that area in particular, and that the regional transportation strategy, if fully funded, is the way forward for Northern Ireland in general.
Adjourned at 5.08 pm.